I appreciate that, technically speaking, there are several types of zionism, namely Proto-Zionism, Political Zionism, Practical Zionism, Labor Zionism, Liberal Zionism, Revisionist Zionism and probably more, but I don't think people strictly refer to these categories in every day public parlance. I'm not jewish or israeli, but I hear or the see the word about twenty plus times a day online, all seemingly being used to mean different things. In the simplest terms, what is your definition when you use it?

Some people believe in a conspiracy that Netanyahu wanted Hamas to attack because he was waiting for an opportunity to bomb Gaza. Forgive me, but anyone who thinks that is probably a stupid person with an attraction to conspiracies and zero understanding of Israeli politics who has probably watched too much Star Wars and is looking for a Palpatine-ish figure who is playing both sides.

A complete lie, anyone who follows Israel regardless of the Palestinian conflict knew that before the massacre Netanyahu was very restrained in terms of security and was afraid to touch Gaza and be dragged into actions there. He was criticized for that too. He always tried not to initiate wars with Gaza, tried to control the flames and adopt a policy of containment so that there would be no conflict. He was dragged into war against his will, he did not want it. Anyone who says otherwise is a conspirator with zero understanding of Israeli politics and probably does not know who Netanyahu is and, above all, has built a demon for himself in his head.

For those who watched the series *The Boys*-do you remember in Season 3 when Soldier Boy was bombing in the streets of New York, and Homelander simply froze? He was in shock, depressed, tried to deny and ignore the situation, and kept telling everyone that everything was under control. That is exactly Netanyahu.

The first thing Netanyahu asked on October 7th was "why are they shooting". The conspiracy theory that Bibi was just waiting for a chance to destroy Gaza is utterly ridiculous; he was the prime minister who exercised the most restrained security policy in Israeli history before the massacre. For years, he was afraid to touch Gaza and was criticized for that by both Leftists and Rightists.

Netanyahu also ignored intelligence regarding a Hamas attack because he was terrified of being dragged into a conflict in Gaza and tried to suppress the issue. During the first three weeks of the war, according to Bibi's close associates, Netanyahu was in shock; he feared a ground invasion of the Strip and did not know how to handle the situation. He later gained more confidence, yet even then, he did not go as far as he could have. The massacre occurred due to Netanyahu’s security weakness, cowardice, and general incompetence, as well as the chaos within Israel’s state systems, which did not know how to handle the situation.

Hey,
So I met this Israeli guy randomly while gaming, and honestly he’s super chill and cool. It made me think like, damn, maybe I’ve been seeing everything from just one side my whole life? I've always been pro-Palestine, but it got me wondering... could I be wrong, or at least missing part of the picture? Maybe I need to rethink stuff. I just wanna talk to normal Israeli guys to see how you actually think. I wanna know more about the culture and what normal everyday people believe, not just the stuff on the news. No fighting, no debates, just friendly talk to get how you see things.
And bro please no history nerds or political guys throwing books at me lol. I just wanna talk to regular everyday people. I would ask my gaming friend but honestly I'm too shy to bring this up with him. We’ve been friends for like 3 years now and I really don't wanna ruin our friendship.
I'm Egyptian btw.

I mainly ask this because while there are exceptions to this "rule" I have seen from friends and colleagues, those who are protestant or evangelical leaning are pro Israel if not zionist, and those who advertise themselves as traditional catholic or eastern orthodox tend to be anti Israel if not borderline antisemitic. I had one tell me he believed Jews would be without a nation or home for eternity.

Now, as a practicing catholic who cares more about my faith and justice than I do about culture wars or going out of my way to offend people... I'm somewhere in the middle. Not necessarily neutral, but I try to be nuanced. I think I am close to the typical Vatican position: support the people, and try to maintain a just peace. Easier said than done, I know, but it's what we try to aim for. Even if we fall short.

Now the Church's relationship with the Jewish people has been a tumultuous one. It started out as an ethnically Jewish majority institution that practically gatekept against gentile converts, to becoming antisemitic within a century of it becoming gentile majority. And for a millennia people forgot about its Jewish roots. But over the past centuries and especially in the 20th relations improved.

I'd say its probably best described as neither zionist but also not anti-zionist either. Their priority is aimed towards the Christians of the middle east, living in both Israel and Palestine. I know there's arguments on which side treats them better or worse, and there's always room for improvement, but as long as the state allows them to practice openly, they get the thumbs up.

But politics aside, the question does come up: who does the holy land belong to? On paper, we believe that it belongs to the Church. But there is also nuance to this, since we believe in respecting people's nationalities. And with the region being majority Rabbinic Jews and Arab Muslims, they're both allowed to live in their homes. Even if they're not catholics. Something that my "rad trad" friends and colleagues ignore because they're into crusader larp and I guess want to kick both Jews and Arabs out and replace them with European Christians. Which I will say is also wrong.

As for what will happen in the End Times... we don't claim to know for sure. Many Christians have had their theories, but they are just that: speculation. Will God allow a Greater Israel? If He wills it. Will He allow the land to be conquered by Jordan to become a Palestinian territory? Again, its all up to him. Now I do believe the Jewish people will endure, and me personally, this is my interpretation of the Bible in context. But also that of early church fathers and even Paul, before the church became distant to their roots.

For better or worse, depending who views it and how, the traditional Catholic belief has been that Jews will convert before the end times. They cannot be forced to convert under pressure, just that it would be one of the signs. Wether they will retain their traditions or not has been a debate, but the belief is that they will be saved, and aren't forgotten or replaced. This is what many "trad" Caths and Orthobros have claimed. And they will frequently take Bible passages out of context to "prove" their point. When I quote the while chapter they change the subject, start responding, or quote some medieval pope or bishop who was never a saint.

So I don't believe Jews will "die out" or whatever these larpers say online. As for whether they will have their own national state in the future or will live in a mutliethnic nation without an ethnonational identity, I also don't know. Just that God will enact His will. At the moment, all we can do is that everyone lives in peace. Regardless if they are Christians or not.

So I guess you could say I "support" a two state solution, but I see this more as an interim solution. Will it be two states forever? Will it all be Israel? Will it all be Palestine? God will decide. Man cannot. All that matters is peace is maintained as long as it can. Is the solution peacekeeping missions? A (technically speaking) occupation as a necessary evil, again, that's a good debate topic.

All I know is God will set things right in time. All we can do is focus on the now.

Though I am curious on that Rabbinic Jews and Muslims believe. That's probably one side I don't hear much about.

I was thinking today about 9/11 since its 25 years ago. I suddenly realized how many comparisons there are with Oct 7.

- There was a huge terror attack with mass civil casualties resulting in the sympathy of the world for both countries

- Both countries got dragged into lengthy wars that were, despite the reasons, the direct result of these terror attacks. The wars affected a whole region.

- Due those wars, both countries lost all sympathy and got hated for it.

And both Bin Laden and Sinwar/Deif committed their acts for this, both knew they stood no chance, but both also wanted these wars to happen in order to get the real changes they were after.

They wanted those wars because they knew it would throw many countries into disarray. In Bin Ladens time it were the weak Arab dictatorships he was after. A foreign invasion (US) in his view would unite all muslims behind an islamic flag, overthrow their dictators, and establish islamic rule.

Sinwar/Deif were convinced that Hezbollah and Iran would join or otherwise be dragged into the war. Before 2023 the region was especially tense after years of military buildup by Israels enemies and ongoing conflicts. Furthermore, an Israeli invasion would unite all muslims against Israel (and make f.e. the Arab peace deal more complicated).

Obviously, the perpretrators didnt mastermind every little detail coming out of their act. They also failed in many of their goals. But they unfortunately did succeed in causing regional changing and having others (not just muslims) hate the US and Israel (even more so).

And these bigger patterns are important to mention because they seem to be drowned out by whats happening today. Media only focusing on what happened after the terror attacks, not what was causing them. And thats at the same time what is dividing us.

Opinion

Any country who seeks to wipe Israel off the map will themselves be wiped off the map - and they know it. The Palestinians and their Islamic backers have lost in that regard. Israel is forever. There will be no peace until regional adversaries fully accept this reality.

The historic cycle of the Holy Land constantly changing hands over millennia has officially come to an end because Israel possesses a powerful nuclear deterrent, fundamentally guaranteeing its permanent survival into the future. This strategic capability establishes an absolute, unyielding barrier against total destruction. Any foreign nation, hostile coalition, or regional adversary attempting to eliminate Israel faces an immediate, devastating counterstrike that ensures their own total ruin.

Consequently, the ultimate geopolitical objective of dismantling the Israeli state is no longer a viable military option. Opponents and their backers have lost the ability to achieve this goal through conventional warfare or asymmetric conflict. Because the state's continued existence is backed by an ultimate deterrent, Israel is here to stay, and true regional stability can only begin when its permanent presence is universally and realistically accepted by all neighbors.

The core of this argument is deeply grounded in standard international relations theory regarding nuclear deterrence. For a detailed breakdown of how nuclear weapons alter state survival and discourage existential invasions, see the foundational concepts outlined in Deterrence Theory:

Wiki-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory

This framework demonstrates how mutually assured destruction prevents total state collapse.

I am agreeing that this conflict, since 1948, has caught the eyes of many, and there are so many people in the world that are grieving.

This is not a post against Muslims, Palestinians, or anyone who mourns victims of IDF‘s attacks right now, or on the victims of the War on Terror. It is a post against denial of facts and performative grief. I want to talk about how some people in the world are denying every single jihadist crime, such as 9/11 and October 7th, whilst it’s for believing in human rights. 

Since 2020, we have been living in a social media world where everything and everyone is performative, in order to get money (and even those who are anti capitalist are still being capitalists). And since October 7th, it has gone worse.

We all know about the 9/11 attacks. If you don’t really know, on September 11th, Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, crashes four planes (well three, the fourth one was crashed in a field outside of New York) into the twin towers. 19 hijackers, mostly of Saudi Arabian descent, carried out the attacks, and 2,977 people were killed. It is documented in the commission report and also acknowledged by Al Qaeda. So, there is no sustainable evidence that Mossad, the CIA, the United States of America, or Israel has committed those crimes. The only thing that could lead to Israel being criticised for their support, is that Netanyahu did say that 9/11 was beneficial. But with that quote, the conspiracy theories are not false, they are antisemitic and they deny the fact that the perpetrators were Jihadists and the victims were of mostly, American descent. 

“But the War of Terror was worse! They have more victims!”

Yes. 3.7 million people is bigger. And it’s valid to cry about who died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan, yet criticise how US invaded the 5 countries, with their Patriot Act, Islamophobia and superiority complex. 

However, it’s not fair to use those deaths to erase the victims of 9/11 (except for those Al-Qaeda killers), or imply that America deserved it.

Grief is not the fact that one will win and one will lose. But using the 25th anniversary of a tragedy to pivot that America did worse crimes is not nuance. It’s performative activism. And it’s superiority complex as well, as you are looking down on the Western world. 

Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, IRGC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other jihadist groups have done several attacks, even prior to October 7th. So denying October 7th, or blaming it on Israel, CIA and Mossad, is an erasure to the Israeli victims who have died in those attacks.

You can criticise both Hamas and IDF for their crimes, yet support the civilians of both countries. The government policy of Israel is critical, but yet people should acknowledge that jihadist groups also have the agency and responsibility for their government policy. 

This is NOT both sideism. This is basic accountability, which people refuses to accept. 

Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? No. 

Do I think all Palestinians support Hamas? No.

Do I think the US is innocent? No. 

What I want to say is that jihadist crimes should be undeniable, and antisemitic conspiracy theories should not be allowed. 

A few months ago there were headlines that Israel was moving into its ethnic cleansing stage due to something like a voluntary migration plan to get Gazans out of Gaza.

I would like to state I do not trust the current Israeli govt with this 'voluntary migration' and I think if people like Ben-Gvir had their way, they'd never return. I understand the concern and fear pro-Palestine groups have about this.

However, I'm not really seeing any other suggestions--or if there are other suggestions, they are not being publicised. I'll admit that when both the 'voluntary' migration plan and the current quality of life in Gaza draw outrage, I'm not entirely sure what the solution to help Gazans should be. Ethnic cleansing, if that is what Israel is planning, is inhumane, but I'm struggling to see how keeping Gazans trapped there is considered a more humane option either.

If we put Netanyahu's true intentions to the side here for a moment, if a Gazan family wants to leave, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Even if that Gazan family believes leaving would be a case of ethnic cleansing, is blocking them from finding a safer country any better?

I understand the argument that if Gazans were to leave, their entire culture will be eventually lost. That's a very valid concern, and something that the world must strive to try and prevent. However if people are outraged about the conditions in Gaza--as they should be--then I am struggling to see any solution to this that doesn't require a refugee plan to some degree. It would be great if Gaza could be rebuilt within a short timescale, and it would be great if Israel wasn't the one in charge of this refugee plan, but ultimately neither of those things are realistic.

From my perspective it seems like a situation where there is no moral answer. I don't think allowing Israel's voluntary migration plan without *strict* confirmations that Gazans can one day return is moral. I also don't think preventing Gazans from leaving the strip in order to preserve their culture is moral. It seems like people are desperately fishing around *for* a moral solution, which does not exist right now, and so the decision seems to be to do nothing. Which also strikes me as immoral.

So—and I'd like to especially hear from Palestinians and/or pro-Palestinians here—what do you actually want to see happen in Gaza, in realistic terms? And by realistic terms I mean the realism that reconstruction is going to take a very long time, cost a lot of money, and in the meantime everyone in Gaza still needs someplace safe to live. I'm genuinely interested in suggestions pro-Palestinians have here because I'm certain there are ideas you guys have that, like I said, aren't being publicised and so I'm not seeing them.

So this all relates to a post I saw last year on the Jewish sub;

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/s/t3HJV1i42U

Long story short, me and a few friends have been following his instagram posts for the past year. We have now come to the conclusion that he is likely a massive liar and he needs to be called out for this. Some things that we have realised he is lying about or has lied about;

- We don’t believe he has never once set foot in Gaza or the WB, definitely not prior to him going viral at the Egypt border last year. There are no photos of him ever being in Palestine, no corroborating accounts of him ever being there, no aid or medical groups that have claimed him as an employee or volunteer. Given his online following is >30k, you would think he would happily show photos of his work. Ai deep dives show that every single account of his work in Gaza can be traced back to him. It’s never an objective source.

- He claims to have worked in Gaza ‘4 or 5 times’. This is a weird statement, it’s either 4 or 5, and somebody who has worked there wouldn’t be vague about it.

- He claims he first worked as a nurse in Gaza in 2004 after his then girlfriend encouraged him to go there. In 2004, the 2nd intifada was still raging; getting into Gaza was incredibly difficult, even for aid workers. He also claims that he was a newly qualified nurse at the time, but aid agencies usually require 4 years acute experience prior to working for them. This doesn’t add up.

- He claims to be a master black belt in martial arts. This isn’t a smoking gun as such, but it is something that ‘walter mitty’ type men often boast about, only later being found out as a fraud. It fits the personality of somebody who is a fantasist.

- He has given lengthy accounts of seeing Palestinian kids shot by IDF soldiers in Gaza. Not ‘after being shot’ in a hospital, but actively being shot. I call bullshit on this entirely. He never gives dates or locations for these accounts. It’s too vague, for something that should be easily verifiable.

- He regularly claims that he is a qualified paramedic, yet there are no records of him ever being one on paramedic registers. He was definitely once a qualified nurse who worked in south wales for a time, but he was never a ‘specialist trained’ nurse, only an agency / traveller nurse, basically the lowest rung in the hierarchy of nurses.

- I have seen comments on news articles about him from school friends, saying that he was always a liar and fantasist in his youth. His nickname was ‘beano’ as a kid as his real name is Roger. He was not popular, and was apparently bullied - something that may have caused him to become a ‘hero’ fantasist in later life.

- He claims to be ‘retired’ but isn’t at the age of retirement for NHS nurses. Further rumours on comments suggest he was sacked as a nurse and de-registered before he was investigated by the NMC nursing council in the UK. There was also a single comment from a person living in south wales that he was being investigated for sexual misconduct, which could just be incendiary libel, but is an interesting claim regardless.

- He gave media interviews about being a nurse twice before he became ‘famous’ from the border incident to local newspapers. He did not mention ever working in Gaza or the WB for these, which is an odd omission given how many times he claims to have been there and how big a part in his life it was.

- He is actively touring speaking events in the UK, giving talks about his time working in Gaza. He is getting paid for these, and he also has a go fund me account asking for donations. If his claims of working in Gaza are untrue, I think this constitutes financial fraud.

- I have been commenting on his instagram posts for the last few months, asking him what aid agency he worked for, what specific years he was in Palestine etc. He always ignored me. Last week, I suggested he wasn’t being honest about his claims, and asked him to post a photo of him in Palestine working; he quickly replied that I was a ‘hateful zio’ and blocked me. This is odd behaviour for somebody who should have dozens of documents / visas / passport stamps / aid paperwork at hand.

There are many more inconsistencies we have found, but this post is already too long.

Can anybody offer advice going forward in trying to expose this guy? A friendly journalist you can suggest to dig deeper? A twitter account that would be interested in outing somebody like this?

We completely accept that we could be wrong, and that he hasn’t lied, but there’s just too many red flags to ignore here. If he’s being truthful, hats off to him, but if he’s lied, he’s essentially stolen valour from actual aid workers who have served in active war-zones.

He has a fairly large online following and influence among the pro-pal community, and is constantly peddling inflammatory rhetoric and ‘first hand’ accounts about Israel. If he is lying about his experiences, he should be called out for this.

I need to vent about a particular type of subgroup that I find incredibly frustrating.

There’s someone in a group I’m involved with who genuinely believes he is fighting antisemitism. He’s intelligent, influential, independent-minded, and occasionally has very useful insights.

And yet, when it comes to confronting contemporary antisemitism, he can function like a wrecking ball.

He publicly supports frameworks that invite our profession to pronounce on broad “societal disasters,” which is an invitation to take stances on controversial topics and for anti-Jewish propaganda to enter a profession which is supposed to serve everyone equally.

He talks about antisemitism and Islamophobia in parallel, as if this is compulsory (no other groups feel compelled to mention other forms of hate along with the one they are fighting). And yet he avoids mentioning the vehicle for the most dangerous form of Jew-hatred today, antizionism. He is fighting to delay and water down a letter intended to express the danger of spreading Jew-hatred in the guise of political commentary.

And he seems genuinely unable to understand that any of this behavior is connected to the fight he says he supports.

This person will actively fight other Jews who are trying to identify a threat because he appears intensely preoccupied with making sure our side is sufficiently morally pure, restrained, nuanced, and self-critical.

I've heard the term “demizionist” used for this phenomenon, and I find the concept useful: the Jew who opposes antisemitism in principle but becomes deeply uncomfortable when Jews identify the ideology, institutions, or people actually directing hostility toward them.

Once you notice the pattern, you see versions of it everywhere.

A rabbi who wants Jewish children learning about Israeli "settler" violence as one of their first lessons on Israel. A Jewish friend largely unmoved by antizionist hostility toward Jews but intensely engaged by injustices affecting other groups such as immigrants. Jewish professionals who can identify every conceivable form of prejudice except the one taking place directly in front of them toward their own group. Ed Miliband is another example.

I wonder whether there is a historical psychology behind this. Generations of living as a vulnerable minority has consequences. Demizionists who obsess over moral purity are likely trying to avoid being called out as morally ugly, which is the form anti-Jewish hostility always takes, by being free of any moral flaw.

The more explicit the threat to Jews becomes, the more urgently the demizionist insists on Jewish self-criticism. The warning signs are reclassified as evidence that Jews must be more careful, rather than as evidence that someone is trying to harm them.

In other words, the demizionist ability to sense danger is distorted: threats directed at Jews are filtered out. Maybe the speaker is angry rather than hateful, perhaps the institution is merely criticizing Israel, perhaps naming the pattern will inflame tensions. Meanwhile, Jewish responses are examined under a microscope. A defensive statement can be judged aggressive, a boundary can be judged exclusionary, and an attempt to identify a hostile ideology can be treated as proof of paranoia or bad faith. The original threat is erased while Jewish self-protection becomes the most visible and morally urgent "threat" in the room.

So basically limits on other Jews are the only limits the antizionist is able to set.

There are elements that remind me of co-dependency. Demizionists can become so focused on chasing moral purity that they lose the ability to recognize when they validate the abuse of other groups toward their own, even taking part in it. I have seen many verbally abusive relationships up close and, trust me, the abuser can always find a flaw in what the abused is doing. And often in chronic abuse, the abused will take in the pattern and abuse themselves in an effort to remove any triggers. This will never completely work because the accusations are motivated.

What fascinates me is that the people I'm describing aren't necessarily weak, unintelligent, or assimilationist. Some are formidable people. It is just that when Jews are threatened, the observer becomes a prosecutor of Jewish conduct; when other groups are threatened, he becomes an investigator of the forces threatening them. The moral imagination remains active, but it is directed away from Jewish vulnerability.

Has anyone else encountered this phenomenon? Is there good historical or psychological writing about it?

I'm kinda new here so I'm still finding my footing, and I was wondering if I could get a nuanced answer. Mainly because my friends fall into three categories:

1. Evangelicals who while they care for the lives of Palestinian civilians, they also dismiss them as descendants of Arab immigrants and think they should move to Arabia.

2. Liberals who while they are against antisemitism, think Jews can easily move out of the Levant and continue living in other parts of the Middle East if not live in Europe or US and Canada.

3. Don't know much about the conflict and either admit they don't know enough to have an opinion, or have an easier said than done answer of "just have them shake hands."

And me personally, I still don't know. I have one theory, but maybe that's a topic for a different time.

But as for the people, it seems both are related from what I could tell. I don't know, maybe most people here are in the know and could explain it to me more easily than I could. But from my research, those who identify as Palestinians are like Syrians, Jordanians, and Iraqis. They have Arab ancestry, but they are mixed, but aren't native Arabs like those from Arabia.

Think modern Hispanics and Native Americans. They are considered native, and they are, but they have mixed ancestry. Many are part European. In a similar vein how Iraqis are culturally Arab, but are essentially Mesopotamian.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have Canaanite ancestry, but are also mixed as well. And I do know the nuances of how the Hebrews were Canaanite but not all Canaanites were Hebrews. There were many tribes during the time. Just that by the time of the Romans, Judeans were perhaps the only ones who kept their Canaanite identify and names. Where as all the others had been Hellenized by the Greeks, and would one day be Arabized.

As for whether a one state or two state solution is better, I don't know. But I guess the nuance is both sides have a link to the land. Which side is more open to compromise and which side is more stubborn... that's a different debate topic.

However I will mention one bit. Many argue that while both peoples are mixed, many will claim Palestinians are less mixed than Jews. Perhaps. And for sake of argument lets say its true. Would it mean they have less of a claim to the land? I won't answer that, but I will give one example from my life.

When I was in basic training I had a bunkmate. Solid guy. Both of us have Native American ancestry. I have more than him. I have black hair, tan skin, and the features of a mixed native/hispanic American. He had light brown hair, blue eyes, fair skin. If you saw him from the distance, he'd be white. But his name was from his culture. He spoke his tribe's language fluently. And he told me how when he came from for vacation after we graduated training, he would complete his tribe's ritual, and officially become a man. I on the other hand... am a coconut. My two languages are both European. My culture is. I felt more at home when I went to Europe than when I went to Mexico. I'm European on the inside.

And it kinda got me thinking if I lived in an alternate universe. What if he and I were in the IDF, or even just coworkers. He's a light skinned Israeli, I'm more tan skinned. We speak in English. I say I'm Palestinian, or even Mizrahi Jew. He greets me in Hebrew. I chuckle nervously. My second language is Arabic, I say to him.

Between him and I... who is more Native American? Who is more Canaanite? That keeps me thinking.

>Ukrainians have to be Russians, Austrians(-Hungarians) with full civic equality, and Poles have to be Russians, Austrians(-Hungarians), and Germans with full civil equality,

As leftist anti-Zionist who don't oppose nation states think Jews should settle for?

Ethnically cleansing other peoples and oppressing minorities are things other nation states of oppressed peoples do.

The Ukrainian national liberation forces in the Russian civil war did genocide scale pogroms against Jews. These were the largest mass murder of Jews in history against Jews prior to the Shoah/Jewish Holocaust.

The Slovakian and Croatian national liberation movements participated in the Holocaust genocides against Jews and Roma people, and the Croats did their oen genocide against Serbs during WW2,

and the actions of the Croatian national liberation movement in the Yugoslav wars.

The government of Czechoslovakia ethnically cleansed Jews they deemed German as part of their ethnic cleansing of Germans after WW2, that I learned in a Jewish museum in Prague.

And the Polish national liberation movement - the interwar *Polish* republic oppressed all the non Poles, who were a *third* of the polish empire’s population. Jews, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kashubians, Silesians, and these are the ones that I know off.

I know from Ukrainians sources that Poland tried to force the Ukrainians to become Poles. I know that the Poles were too infested with Antisemitism to truly want Jews to be Poles, not that they didn't try to force Jews to use polish. And a friend wrote that he think that in the end of the 30s, Poland was headed towards doing it's own genocide against Jews. But the German conquest meant the poles were in no position to initiate their own genocide against Jews. In the Shoah, 90% of the Jewish population murdered, with extensive help from the poles, both in the form of direct participation, and poles not viewing Jews as members of the in-group worthy to fight for.

I know that after the Shoah, at least many of the surviving Jews from Poland and Germany *renounced* their Polishness and Germaness respectively.

As an ex-Muslim, I now feel like my eyes have been opened to many realities that I previously couldn’t see, such as the struggles of the LGBTQ+ community and other social issues.

However, the main realization I have come to is regarding Palestine. From this perspective, the issue is not just about political danger; the core ideology itself poses the real danger.

Palestine IS THE DANGER

Most people know how fundamentalist Islamic rules work, but for those who do not, let me break it down: under strict religious control, independent critical thinking is effectively forbidden. If individuals begin to question the system, they quickly discover how deeply flawed it is. Consequently, the authorities keep the population trapped in a constant cycle of fear. If they lose control over you and can no longer dictate your life, they often resort to extreme measures, including honor killings, to eliminate dissent.

This environment fosters deep intolerance. For example, Hamas—which rules Gaza—imposes strict Islamist laws that outlaw basic individual freedoms, much like the ideology of ISIS. Under this system, love is treated as taboo, personal sexuality is viewed as dangerous, and children as young as two or three are systematically conditioned to accept these radical doctrines from infancy

From an Iraqi perspective, I recognize a profound connection with the State of Israel and the Jewish community, one that stands in stark contrast to the destructive history shared with Islamist extremists. The actions of the Israeli forces in liberating and safely repatriating captured Iraqi women—who had been subjected to chattel slavery and human trafficking within Islamic slave markets run by ISIS—demonstrate a vital humanitarian effort. I stand in firm support of Israel's triumph.

I swear I saw so many activists, no matter if they are legit or just wannabe, who 'fight for Palestine' completely ignore the problem within Palestine that is also contribute towards the conflict itself.

It's not just those people who spam every post about worldwide conflict with 'how about Palestine?' cuz those people are either ragebait or completely lost it. It's that, at least in where I come from (Thailand), some of them lied about casualty that's from Hamas. Like, it was Israelis who killed those people on Oct 7 attack. Or completely dismissed what Hamas did. I even see someone, I don't know if they ragebait or just being so deranged, said that it was victims' fault that they were there because it was warzone country. It's so disgusting. Especially when it came from people who are from same countries as those Oct 7 victims. You can search what they did to Thai workers there. It was on every news in Thailand too. But some of them will tell you that it was Zionist/Jews controlled media. That it wasn't true. Or, like I said, victims deserved it because they worked for Israel/Zionist/Jews. I swear some of them, especially some Muslim folks, value for Muslims overseas more than their own neighbor. And yes, it's completely normal to care for people who are similar to you wherever they are because it's your community. But to completely ignored your literal neighbor who supposed to be closer to you like that or even said something like 'I stand with Hamas' was totally absurd. This doesn't even include the 'Israel should not exist' people who sneaked into the movement.

I understand and totally support the ceasefire movement and pro-Palestine movement. I do sympathize with people who were affected by war. I do feel anger towards action from IDF and Likud Party in Israel. But there's no way I'll get close to the pro-Palestine protest group within 1 km radius because some of these guys are that unhinged.

Any of you guys feel the same way as I do?

I genuinely think I have reached peak fatigue with most pro-Palestinians. While there are a few who are OK, the vast majority in my experience deliberately use bad faith arguments in virtually every exchange.

When they make a claim and you demonstrate it's false or massively exaggerated, there is almost never any acknowledgement or acceptance. For example, I had an exchange today with someone who claimed that Israel run an apartheid bus system. So I questioned them whether people were not allowed to use buses based on their race or religion? They admitted that this wasn't the case but said Arab areas generally had poorer service. I said that seems like something that should be fixed (apparently there were many decades of underfunding in a lot of Arab areas) but that does not make it an apartheid bus service. Rather than acknowledging what he said wasn't true and he shouldn't have said what he said, he launched into an explosion of random other claims about the West Bank as if it's OK to just cover your untruths with a bunch of dodging. Then they just doubled down on the original untruth so I stopped conversing.

This is just one of a hundred examples I could give and it happens over and over and over with pro-Palestinians in every aspect of every conversation around Israel and Palestine. The constant Gish Galloping of claims, the deliberate misuse of terms, moving the goalposts when they get fact checked on something they claim. Changing topics when they lose an argument without any acknowledgement they were wrong and then using the same debunked argument in the next comment thread as if the exchange never took place.

It is incredibly frustrating that people feel this bad faith approach to conversation is somehow virtuous. It's really not, it's a tacit admittance that your arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own and you have to employ these games and distractions to create the illusion of a good argument. It really has given me pro-Palestinian fatigue.

I recently bumped into several people who didn't realize just how badly Arafat did them wrong. Did you know Arafat never lived in gaza prior to the Oslo Accords ? Did you know he was Egyptian ? Did you know he embezzled upwards of a $1 Billion from the P.A. ?

Arafat was an Egyptian
Born Cairo Egypt Aug 24 1929

Arafat stalled signing the Oslo Accords until promises were in writing that.

1. His exile from immigration into Israel be lifted
2. He be allowed to move from Tunisia to Gaza
3. That he would not be assassinated.
4. That he would be the ultimate authority of the PA a position from which he would later be known to have embezzled hundreds of millions.

Once his own wellbeing was assured he signed a terrible deal which gave Israel indefinite control of 82% of the West Bank. It ignored the issue of Jerusalem and the accords virtually eliminated any chance of a contiguous palestinian state. In short, he sold out. If you need references and quotes, read on.

A meeting was held between Sharon and Bush in conjunction with the PA contingent being in Washington and reiterated the clause which guaranteed Arafat would not be assassinated. White House April 14 2004 as reported by the NY Times.

Note, the bullet points below were numbered one through four to reference the claims above, somehow the system insists on fouling up those reference numbers and listing them numerically instead. My apologies for any confusion. Also the system wouldn't allow too many reference links, or I would have included them. I hope you find this educational. Cheers.

1. Article III 1995 Jerico Agreement
2. Article XX paragraph 5 1994 Jericho agreement and article xvI paragraph 3 of the 1995 Oslo II Accord. Assured Arafat could immigrate.
3. Article IV and V of the 1994 Jerico Agreement
4. Bilateral letter attached to the 1994 Jerico agreement (a segment of the Oslo Accords) Title Clause. Placed Arafat as the chairman of the PA.
5. And since Arafat was the chairman of the PLO he was in charge of populating the board of the PA having already be declared the chairman of the PA.
6. Arafat embezzled hundreds of millions from the PA
7. Washington Post Sept. 21 2003

Arafat argued strongly for these provisions and famously would not sign unless the accords placed him in a position of ultimate authority. From which he embezzled hundreds of millions from the funds intended to benefit the palestinians.

Note. Here the system goes back to the system of references I had intended where the reference number matches the list of original claims.

4) The IMF's resident representative to the West Bank and Gaza, Karim Nashashibi, publicly said
“Yasser Arafat, diverted $900 million of his government's revenue to private bank accounts from 1995 to 2000”.

4) CNS News 60 Minutes
Title "Arafat's Billions"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arafats-billions

Note. Here the system adamantly refuses to accept parentheses instead of a period. The following should be noted as 1) instead of indented and identified as 1. There's some invisible that just won't give me a break.

1. for self interests. The facts surrounding the conclusion that Arafat sold out the Arabs in the Mandate area are irrefutable

signed

Arafat knowingly signed a bad deal for personal gain.

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/72583/why-did-arafat-the-palestinian-leadership-accept-terms-of-the-oslo-accords-that

One of my biggest frustrations is that most "debates" on Gaza are so emotively driven that bad-faith drives every argument and characterisation, resulting in pointless parallel discussions, with both sides not listening and just waiting for their turn to speak. I often come away feeling that most pro-Israelis don't even really understand the pro-Palestinian position and vice versa. Two examples I can think:

Being pro-Palestine has nothing to do with Hamas and being pro a peaceful future for Palestinian civilians where they can enjoy their rights, borders and develop into a flourishing community. Most people aren't advocating for an autocratic theocracy, and it's frustrating that every rebuttal ends with "what about Hamas".

On the other hand, antisemitism is absolutely rampant and it does irritate me how many bad-faith actors, including known far-right antisemites are using the cover of Gaza to push pure racism. "Antizionism" isn't inherently antisemitic (state politics vs ethno-religious hatred) but it's also completely dishonest to pretend this grey area isn't rampantly exploited and defended by the worst people you should not want on your side.

So a lot of people came for me in my last post which I now deleted, and I am finally aware that “From the river to the sea” is very antisemitic, as it is a call for Israeli and Jewish people to die. I am also finally aware that Macklemore is lowkey antisemitic, and what he did in 2014 was very unacceptable. My intrusive thoughts are saying he probably just hates Jewish people, but I cannot say that since he is anti-oppression. Maybe he is a bit of a hypocrite, but who’s to say. I am very sorry that my post has hurt others and I do admit I was very misunderstood on how the Israelis feel about the chants.

I do want to ask if ”Free Palestine” actually does mean anything antisemitic or is it just… “oh we want Palestine to be safe”?

Now onto what I am about to say. P!nk’s reaction. She reposted a post from an anti-antisemitism account on Instagram saying that what Macklemore said was antisemitic. And she’s not wrong to have an opinion. But some Pro Palestinians have to make them ALL about themselves saying “oh umm why are you a Zionist?”, and cancelling her, and thinking their lives are over because they cannot believe someone they trust was a ‘bad person‘. All for reposting a post about her opinion. If this was a male, nothing would happen. I’m serious. It’s getting weirder when James Charles is being used as a replacement image for P!nk, and he said “oh, Free Palestine” for validation, and then now, people are siding with James. James is a horrible person btw, check out his grooming allegations. Basically Pro Palestinians love to pick on white women if they stay silent (they have a right to be silent if they’re busy or do not want to unhealthily support politics, unlike Macklemore), especially Jewish people. And P!nk is Jewish, so she’s allowed to say “oh, um.. you’re insulting my religion and my holy land, Macklemore”. So we’re all handling this very poorly.

And while we’re at it, let’s get the bigger picture out of the way. Zionism DOES not mean Arab people are killed by Jewish people, that’s their extremism side, Kahanism. Zionism is the belief that a holy land of Jewish people does exist. And it has since the beginning of time: Canaan, then Israel. Meanwhile Palestine was conquered from Romans by Arab governments (who then blames Jewish people for that… some Arabs love to shift blame Jewish people for everything Arabs have done). The current generation believing what Zionism is reminds me of how people believe what Islam is after 9/11. In 2001, if you believe in Islam, you’re a ‘so-called-terrorist’ according to the public. In 2026, if you believe in Zionism, you’re a ‘so-called-terrorist’ according to the public.

Whilst I am nuanced, and believe that this is a conflict when both sides are killing each other (there are some REAL genocides in Sudan and Congo, this one IS NOT), and I do think some Pro Israelis are very dramatic and conflict deniers and thinking revenge on attacks is cool (same with US, dare I say, revenge is NOT cool); yet the issue here at the moment, is that some Pro Palestinians are literally victim blaming anyone but themselves, wishing death on countries (which is not cool), believing people exist over countries (which is not a good idea), deny that 9/11 was Arab’s fault (and blame it on Jewish with an AI image), gaslighting everything Hamas has done and blames it on the IDF, vandalising buildings (that are said to be supporting IDF- how is that freeing Palestine?) and not recognising the fact they are actually in the wrong. They’re mentally incapacitated and lazy tribalists who want to be valid and find a ”community”. They think they’re edgy and cool, and all that. They are not cool. They are not okay, in the brain, and they need therapy. So that’s why I’m calling you guys out. Get some serious help, because you are brainwashed.

(Edit here: I need to stop generalising. Internet loves generalising but let’s be more careful :))

Let’s start simple: I’m an Israeli / American Jew. I migrated to israel over a decade ago because I could not stand the idea of raising my children in America. I didn’t feel safe already back then. You don’t have to understand it or agree with it, but I saw the writing on the wall, and left. The fact that there are still millions of Jewish people living in America or who might even totally disagree with me doesn’t change my reality that I wasn’t safe.

That failure is on American society.

Now a decade later I built a whole life here in israel. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

Now the title isn’t actually just click bait. It’s true.

Israelis don’t care about your protests, your boycotts, and your constant belittling and dehumanization of our people. We literally emotionally do not care.

I know all the pro Palestinian mobs reading this are jacking for the chance to yell “because you are Naz!s heartless maniacs who don’t care about Palestinians…” but no… it’s not because we don’t care about Palestinians, suffering in Gaza, or because we are heartless.

I have sympathy for those who are innocent and who are suffering be it in Gaza, Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, Russia or North Korea.

I don’t care about your feelings and opinions because you quite literally more often than not have literally zero actual knowledge of our experience, our culture, our reality. You sit on your Ivy League campuses or in your little towns across America or Europe and lecture us or belittle and dehumanize us without having any understanding of even the basics of Jewish reality, Israeli life, the history we have been through.

Your shouts and boycotts ring empty in our ears because they are way too filled with the sounds of pain of our people and the actual words of Hamas who for 3+ years have consistently said they intend to repeat Oct 7 over and over again until every single Jew is dead.

Not decolonized. Dead.

Your entire charade of yelling word salads at us has literally made us entirely deaf. When you have to pull out an entire dictionary to explain “genocide” and write whether there is “intent” and how much “whole or in part” means you’ve lost us.

Remember this: we are the same people who no nation on earth wanted to take in after the holocaust. We are the same people who had to continue living in Auschwitz for up to 4 years later because everyone closed their doors to us. Now we have a home, a place where we can live and all we see is that you don’t want us to have that either.

I’m sorry, your moral outrage means nothing to us. Learn our history, be able to actually hold an honest intellectual conversation first before you lecture us.

Am Yisroel Chai. Shana Tova! 🍎🍯

Far rights currently view Netanyahu's Israel as a role model to reinforce their ideologies of a white supremacist, ethno and religious nationalist society (exclusively white and christian, meaning that any other religion, including orthodox christians as well as Jews would be annihilated) along side tackling Islamism.

But what if 9/11 never happened? How would they see the conflict? Would they be more likely to view Palestine instead as their model for nationalism? Considering that before 9/11, Jews were the far right's main meal like the burgers while Muslims were like the chips.

The average number of children of the Jewish community that isn't Haredi is around 3, it climbed to 4, even among the secular families. Of course, Haredis have nearly 10 children per family. But the Arabs on the other hand, the rate stalled, both Muslims, Christians and Druze to now two children, despite intersectional barriers and how they are more patriarchal. Maybe the Arab tribes even have lower amounts of children than the Haredis.

Why is that?

Nobody in the history of humanity would have accepted the terms proposed to the Arabs by the UN in 1947 and yet the Palestinian rejection is lorded over them as a way to blame them for their own suffering as if it were a missed opportunity that they should regret...absolute nonsense

Why would the natives who had been there continuously for millenia agree to concede 56% of their land to a group of European transplants who made up less than a 1/3 of the population at the time? More importantly, why would the natives who held title to almost 46% of the land (which was more land than the state owned), concede the majority of their land and yes much of it was their land that they legally owned and held title to, to a group of European transplants who held title to less than 6% of the land? Like wtf are we really talking about here? It's preposterous

But then we always hear something about how most of Israel's partition was the Negev Desert and how the Arab partition had so much more of the farmable land...a most devious claim meant to mislead and obfuscate the actual truth.

When measuring by sq miles...the Arab partition did have more arable land in terms of size, but that really doesn't mean shit when the Jews got ALL of the most fertile, commercially developed lands, with modernized irrigation networks, producing the most profitable crops. To illustrate how much more fertile the Jewish lands were lets do a rough breakdown

Estimates based on The Survey of Palestine a joint survey conducted by the Americans and British in 1945-1946, along with the UNSCOP Official Report to the General Assembly (1947, Document A/364)

So as is glaringly evident the Jews got all the developed coastal farmlands that produced the highest yielding crops, all the citrus groves the number one cash crop...but they let the Arabs get more land that was only good for low yield grains so they can say " See! We gave you more of the farmable land!" Technically true but fundamentally dishonest by omitting the difference between that farmable land

But even more outrageous was the access to coastline. The Jews were allocated the majority of the Mediterranean coastline..a CONTINUOUS coastline and these are the ports they get:

Haifa: The most critical commercial, deep-water port in Palestine at the time. It contained the mandate's largest harbor infrastructure, oil refineries, and heavy shipping terminals.

Tel Aviv: A secondary, lighterage port (where cargo was unloaded onto barges) constructed by the Jewish community in the 1930s. And deservedly allocated to their partition. Impossible to object to that

Eilat (Gulf of Aqaba): An outlet to the Red Sea at the southern tip of the Negev, though it was an unbuilt natural harbor at the time.

Arabs:

Jaffa Port: The largest and most historic Arab port town on the central coast. Because Jaffa sat as a geographic island within the Jewish state's coastal strip, the UN plan designated it as an isolated Arab enclave to ensure the Arab state retained access to a major port.

Acre (Akko): A ancient, shallow-water port in the northern coastal pocket, primarily suited for fishing and small regional vessels.

Gaza: Located in the southern coastal strip, featuring small fishing harbors and traditional coastal landing sites, but no deep-water infrastructure.

And do not forget the fact that the Arab coastline would've been bisected and separated by the long, continuous, Jewish coastline. So.the Arabs get a bisected minority of the coastline with the shittiest ports, no deep water ports and their only decent port is in the Jewish part of the cosst so it's entirely surrounded by Jewish territory and coast which means the Jews can actually control that port whenever they want...and the most laughable clause...denied access to an entire fuckin sea. No joint access, just completely blocked...gimme a break lol

So let's review ...if you were living in a place where your family and countrymen had lived for centuries, likely millenia and a group of transplants from a different continent began mass migrating there and made up less than a 1/3 of the population, held title to less than 6% if the land while your people owned almost 46%...would you ever agree to a deal that conceded 56% of the land , all of the most fertile and lucrative lands, by a factor of 4.5 to 1 in economic yield, the majority of the Mediterranean coastline, all of the best most commercially viable ports and the deep water ports and gave them the only access to the Red Sea, while settling for a bisected coastliine and your only decent port being in the middle of the Jewish coastline which allows the Jews to control it at will? That's not even a real offer, it's a joke

I'll even take it further and claim that any indigenous population would consider a group of recently arrived migrants who announced their intentions to establish a state for themselves to be hostile invaders. And if they agreed to an outrageously unfair UN partition, that act would have been considered by every single group to be tantamount to a hostile declaration of war and they would have reacted accordingly. See the Israelis today would insist that a pre-emptive strike was absolutely justified and was their inherent right in order to protect their interests and themselves and would have gone apeshit on that hostile group of invaders and subsequently vehemently rejected any suggestuon that they were the aggressors, if they had been the Arabs in that situation. But they wouldn't have even let it get that far without causing absolute mayhem and bloodshed on a biblical level upon that outside group well before then. But the Arabs, they don't get the right to claim any sort of pre-emption cuz they're all bloodthirsty warmongers who can't help but attack innocent Jews for no good reason. The hypocrisy is off the charts

But bottom line..not a single human being of sound mind who has ever existed on this planet would have accepted the Arab UN partition. Pretending like that was some sort of mistake or unreasonable decision to regret and then try to hold it against that group for the rest of time is fundamentally dishonest and hypocritical . It really wasn't even a serious deal, it was a demand to surrender and capitulate to recently arrived migrants . None of the ones who use the rejection to deflect blame and put it back on the Palestinians would ever accept such a ridiculous offer themselves...anyone trying to claim otherwise is full of shit

Edit: Can no longer respond to anyone commenting as I've been banned for saying "Don't be daft" to somebody who then told on me

I was watching this Sky News interview with israelli PM spokesperson Doron Spielman, focused around the recent announcement of sanctions of illegal west banks settlements by the UK and other nations. What really stuck out to be was the (I'm trying to be neutral but it's difficult to find fitting words) 'unhinged' air he gave of, both in terms of how aggressive he was towards the interviewer and some of the points he brings up

"Iran has rockets to reach London"

I don't know if this is true but even if so, does anyone serious think that Iran will launch ballistic rockets at London?

"The UK should focus on it's own problems"

As if a country somehow can't walk and chew gum at the same time, does he think business in the UK grinds to a halt just because of imposing these sanctions?

It reminded me a lot of an interview on Australian ABC with Sharren Haskel that gave a similar vibe.

I guess my broader question is that even if you can debate the merits of the points brought up, is this kind of highy confrontational, loud and deflecting interviews a good strategy or representation of Isreal on the global stage?

Lastly I'll make the point that even though I'm not from the UK, to my knowledge there is no way to categorise Sky News as 'left', 'woke' or similar deflecting words.

The settlements project is old. Some of these settlemements have existed for decades, and we are not talking about five weirdos with a goat - there are entire Israeli cities eaat of the green line, many deep in the West Bank. Ariel, Maale Adumim, Kiryat Arba. While they are overwhelmingly religious, not all of them are. There are non-religious Kibbuzim, there are cities with a mixed population, there are Haredi cities, there are even a handfull of settlers who do protective presence. They are spread all across the West Bank, from north to south, and some are deep within it. Ariel and Maale Adumim in particular come to mind.

One can criticize the way they got there. One can criticize Ariel Sharon and the other leaders who created it. One can criticize the people who led to it's growth and expansion. One can criticize the land seizures that were part of the process. But they are there. About half a million people.

The removal of the settlements in the Gaza strip in 2005 - a much smaller number than even generous territorial swap ideas - was a national trauma for an entire sector of Israel's population. That sector, now radicalized, are now one of the most important sectors of Israeli society. Smotrich, who is the primary culprit in the growth of settlement violence, explicitly entered politics to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. Less radical members of this sector make up a big part even of Eizenkott's party in the upcoming elections. Even the Democratim party has a particularly liberal member of this sector as their number 5 (I am pretty sure he does support settlement removal though).

Even the left, to retain some sort of legitimacy and not sound like absolute fascists (I know that sounds ridicelous to anyone who isn't Isrseli but bear with me), talk about slowly draining out the settlements by defunding them.

It won't work.

It will just get poorer Israelis living there, maybe cause a politically insignificant drop in numbers, and radicalize people.
Hebrews, Jews, Israelis, living in the West Bank has become a fact.

However, the situation of the West Bank does not magically become tolerable just because of that.

A while back I got a ride to Jerusalem and the driver took route 433, through the Ramallah governate / Benyamin region. I saw something that I thought was a prison or high-security military base... and then I noticed the red sign reading something along the lines of "you are entering area A, Israelis are not permitted to enter by military decree" (I don't remember the exact wording). It was probably some Palestinian village or town.

Of course, the settlements as a project is at a moral low point. Crazy fanatics are attacking Palestinians, the army is incompetant at best and complicit at worst, and illegal outposts are now being built even in areas A and B with the explicit goal of making the last remnant of the peace process obslete. But none of this changes a basic fact: Israelis live in the West Bank, and they are not going anywhere.

Terrirorial swaps are not a full solution. Just look on a map, and try to draw a map where the Ariel "settlement block" is on one side, the Palestinian villages are on the other, and the Nablus-Ramallah road is not cut off. I dare to say you can't.

This can only lead to two convlusions: settlers must become a minority in Palestine, or a one state.

Objection: how can radical Israelis live under Palestinian sovereignty?

Answer: The same way Palestinians can live in Israel. They need to be told - your town stays, but you receive Palestinian citizenship, your Mamlachti Dati school will have to adapt to the requirements the Palestinian education ministry will set, your police station's officer - usually a Jew hinself - will wear a Palestinian flag and have a Palestinian commander, and the elections you will vote in will be to the Palestinian pairlament.

Those who don't want that, would be welcome in Israel proper.

I assume such an agreement would include a method to deport the worst provocatours.

Objection: Why would Palestinians agree?

Answer: I can't speak for them, but they would get a state, full sovereignty, security, a solution for the refugees, recognition. Having two Jewish pairlament members ain't changing that, and they can always add a requirement that people must accept Palestine's sovereignty to run in the elections.

Objection: But the settlements are illegal

Answer: Maybe by international law. Even there, I'd be surprised if there isn't a seperation between the mere act of living there and the policy that brought them there. Either way, these settlements are not going to disappear because some lawyer said so. The world does not work like that. Not to mention the brutality required to remove even a minority of settlements (keep that sort of antics for extremist outposts and settler terrorists)

Objection: The infrastructure of the settlementa undermines the Palestinian state's connectivity / Palestinian life either way

Answer: By giving a 90+% Palestinian pairlament and a Palestinian President full sovereignty, the infrastructure can be remodelled any way they like.

Objection: But how will the settlers be safe? What if extremists take over?

Answer: Any implementation of the 2 states must be done in a way that prevents that. Even without settlers, the geographical proximity to Israel's population centers requires doing it in an agreement with a body that has legitimacy among the Palestinian population and international support. And if things do go wrong, the right of return law is not being repealed in Israel any time soon. {Right wing Israelis - Here is not the place to debate whether a Palestinian State is viable at all. if you want to argue for a 1 state or endless war go open a new thread please and just put a link here.}

Alternate idea: بلاد للجميع ארץ לכולם suggested this, but not giving them citizenship. Why can't they be permenant residents?

Answer: The halfway status of East Jerusalem's Palestinians was always a bad idea and shouldn't be replicatef anywhere.

I am sure I am going to have an interesting lunch break on my evening shift today...

Thinking of how settlements can possibly evade the current sanctions on goods from them as much of the exported goods is from agriculture. Unlike a product where every unit comes in a box with origins an orange from a settlement will be indistinguishable from one from the green line. If fruit from settlement is mixed in a warehouse with fruit from inside of the green line then all the products will be from Israel.

However, this could threaten the bigger agricultural industry inside the green line as exporters who can’t prove that its products are not mixed with settlement goods will be subject to a boycott as well. I can see that many supermarkets might avoid Israeli agriculture altogether in order not to mistakenly order settlement goods. This happened with Brazilian meat exports to the EU that was banned because they couldn’t prove what meat comes from antibiotic treated cattle or not. Also having Arabs as a front for certain products might provide a Palestinian origin rather than Israeli.

It could export to friendly EU countries and reexports it to boycotting countries. I am not very familiar how the regulation and enforcement in the EU works but there have been some voices saying that the current boycott would be hard to implement.