Israel-Gaza war

[Reactionary Libertarian]

The whole "Palestine voted for Hamas" argument is really stupid because:

1. It was 17 years ago. Perhaps they'd feel differently if they got to vote again, but this was the last election Palestine had.

2. 75% of Palestinians were either too young to vote or had not yet been born when these elections occurred.

3. It's not like Hamas won some huge mandate, they only got 44% of the vote. A majority of Palestinians voted against Hamas.

So, we're looking at what, 11% of the population? Probably less when you factor in people who have passed away?

How many Gazans support Hamas and their tactics today? Unfortunately it is a lot higher than 11%.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

So far this is not a good look for Israel. Nothing they have shown so far justifies the attack on the hospital. Was there a massive intelligence failure here? Or is it plausible that they just haven't found/shown the tunnels for some reason?

[Reactionary Libertarian]

So far this is not a good look for Israel. Nothing they have shown so far justifies the attack on the hospital. Was there a massive intelligence failure here? Or is it plausible that they just haven't found/shown the tunnels for some reason?

Again, their PR at times like this is so poor.

And contrary to what some of their apologists both here and elsewhere claim, that actually matters.

Yes. I don’t believe (like some) that they targeted the hospital because they are sadists and want to hurt Palestinians. If it really is a giant Hamas command center, than the attack is perfectly justified. But if it isn’t… than this a terrible, terrible look that will absolutely destroy whatever credibility they had. Most likely reason it was an intelligence failure, the same way the October 7 attacks were. Regardless, if you’re going to attack hospitals full of civilians, you better be absolutely sure it really is a military center. I don’t think many people will sympathize with them because “it was only a mistake”.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Honestly,
People need to stop overreacting about young people having some kind of far left views. They aren't fully integrated into society yet and university is a hotbed for farleft overthinker.

Most of them won't keep these views when they will grow older.

That's not really the issue. Plenty of young leftists (including those on this forum) proudly sport Hamas-friendly rhetoric without explicitly condoning them. I am aware of the large pro-Israel bias in right-leaning media, but the gap is incredible. The current war is perhaps the most scrutinized military campaign in human history, and is fought between the IDF, the morally gray though legitimate military of a morally gray but still legitimate country, fighting absolute monsters that actually enjoy sadistically raping, mutilating, parading and disgracing dead bodies, and whose most oppressed victims are actually the population of Gaza.

The left-leaning media will outright portray unfolding events in a false light. Even if not explicitly condoning Hamas, turning a blind eye just to paint Israel as the aggressor is irresponsible at best, and willingly supportive of antisemitic terrorism at worst. This is exactly the type of PR stunts Hamas want to pull off in the West.

The UN Women took 8 WEEKS to officially recognize that rape has occurred on October 7th, when there were live streams by Hamas of teens with bloody crotches on the day it happened. I mean, what the actual f@ck. The hypocrisy is sickening.

How much worse it is when the youth during the last century was praising Polpot or Mao?

At least then there was no videos or lots of photos easily accessible that could maybe give a supporter plausible deniability.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

So is anything actually happening in Gaza right now?

This thread has just devolved into stupid bickering.

Meanwhile Israel looks to be gearing up for a full-scale invasion of the southern half of the strip.  Unclear whether they're planning to move civilians back to Gaza City or just have them play musical chairs within different areas of south Gaza.

They can't go back to Gaza City; half of it is destroyed. Israel will try to move them all to Rafah.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Why should maintaining a Jewish majority even be a factor? Nobody cared about maintaining a white majority in Rhodesia or South Africa. Israel should be held to the exact same standard.

Israel is not a colony. Israel is a nation run by its indigenous people. You will never disperse or overrun them again.

Ashkenazi Jews are so far removed from the Levant (if connected at all), that calling us indigenous is equivalent to saying that modern day Celtic people are entitled to Austria. Sephardic Jews somewhat closer but still pretty tenuous.

Israel is the indigenous home of some Mizrahi Jews and a whole lot of Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

Ashkenazi Jews still came from Israel if you go back far enough.  DNA tests show they are similar to Palestinians, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews.

Genetically Ashkenazi Jews are clearly Eastern Mediterranean but culturally we are much more Central/Eastern European and our ethnogenesis happened in Europe. It’s irrelevant because “my ancestors were there first” is not a valid basis of property rights, no matter whether it’s being claimed by Jews or Palestinians. Israel owns the land because Israel conquered it. Any other claim is just revanchism. As for indigenoueity, it is a nonsense concept that in practice means “the last nonwhite people to live somewhere before white people showed up”. It’s not based on any consistent moral principle other than anti-whitism. Since most people consider Ashkenazi Jews white, we by definition cannot be indigenous, as white people cannot be indigenous to anywhere.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Why should maintaining a Jewish majority even be a factor? Nobody cared about maintaining a white majority in Rhodesia or South Africa. Israel should be held to the exact same standard.

Israel is not a colony. Israel is a nation run by its indigenous people. You will never disperse or overrun them again.

Ashkenazi Jews are so far removed from the Levant (if connected at all), that calling us indigenous is equivalent to saying that modern day Celtic people are entitled to Austria. Sephardic Jews somewhat closer but still pretty tenuous.

Israel is the indigenous home of some Mizrahi Jews and a whole lot of Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

Ashkenazi Jews still came from Israel if you go back far enough.  DNA tests show they are similar to Palestinians, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews.

Genetically Ashkenazi Jews are clearly Eastern Mediterranean but culturally we are much more Central/Eastern European and our ethnogenesis happened in Europe. It’s irrelevant because “my ancestors were there first” is not a valid basis of property rights, no matter whether it’s being claimed by Jews or Palestinians. Israel owns the land because Israel conquered it. Any other claim is just revanchism. As for indigenoueity, it is a nonsense concept that in practice means “the last nonwhite people to live somewhere before white people showed up”. It’s not based on any consistent moral principle other than anti-whitism. Since most people consider Ashkenazi Jews white, we by definition cannot be indigenous, as white people cannot be indigenous to anywhere.

True enough and many about indigenous rights tend to ignore Taiwan where most are Han Chinese who came from mainland and aborigines only make up 2% of population since both are non-white.  In Latin America gets tougher as most are mixed race having some indigenous ancestry, but also some European, otherwise known as Mestizos. 

Still point being Jews regardless of current complexion did originate from part of world Israel is located in today.  Palestinians also did to.  Beta Israel who appear Black and Ashkenazi Jews who appear white are likely for most part from same place and only appear differently as when any group goes into diaspora, you will get some intermarriage along the way thus some changes in appearance.

Heck most Old World peoples regardless of race likely have at least one common ancestor in past 5,000 years and pretty much anyone on earth except some very isolated tribes like Sentinelese in Andaman Islands are likely mixed race to some degree if you go back just a thousand years.  Even your blonde hair blue eyed person likely in last thousand years probably has at least one Middle Eastern/North African ancestor and good chance even an East Asian and Sub-Saharan African one. 

2,000 years if we assume each generation is on average 25 years would mean 80 generations so simple math would put that at 24 digits, well beyond number of people on earth.  Off course those from similar regions would have many common ancestors while fewer the more distant. 

Taiwan and Japan actually have groups that are considered "indigenous" as opposed to the Chinese-descended majorities. So there is an example where it isn't just white vs non-white. But East Asians are the closest group to whites on the oppression Olympics. But mostly it's just a whites vs non-whites thing. No one says the Danes are the indigenous people of Greenland, even though they got there before the Inuit peoples. 

Actually Ethiopian Jews are not from the Levant and are genetically Ethiopian. Ashkenazi Jews have around 50% from the Levant, I'm seen more or less than that, depending on the study. Jewish genetics are interesting but irrelevant to land rights. And if Jews can claim we are "indigenous" to the Levant than most Palestinians can too. Arabization does not mean the population was literally replaced.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Why should maintaining a Jewish majority even be a factor? Nobody cared about maintaining a white majority in Rhodesia or South Africa. Israel should be held to the exact same standard.

Israel is not a colony. Israel is a nation run by its indigenous people. You will never disperse or overrun them again.

The Palestinians are indigenous to the area but were forced out by Israeli settlers during Nakba.

the Palestinian identity is a 20th century construct and a lot of modern day Palestinians are descended from people that migrated to the area in the late 19th and early 20th century, the development created by Jewish pioneers ironically contributed to that.

All identities are constructs. Palestinian identity is no more or less real than Lebanese, Austrian, South Korean… or Jewish for that matter.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Why should maintaining a Jewish majority even be a factor? Nobody cared about maintaining a white majority in Rhodesia or South Africa. Israel should be held to the exact same standard.

Because history has shown wherever not a majority they tend to face persecution.  There are loads of countries with white majorities so no need for Rhodesia or South Africa to be one.  By contrast there is only one country with a Jewish majority, Israel.

That is just beyond stupid. Should we then have a country for the Quebecois and your First Nations?

As an American (by American I mean from the Americas, not the U.S.), the notion of states based on ethnicity is this horrid 20th-century European monstrosity pushed by that complete dumbass of a President Woodrow Wilson which clearly influenced Hitler's thoughts when it came to what the nation-state should look like and created several wars and deaths with people drawn on the wrong side of the line. You can't have an ethnic-based state and for example be for immigration, because immigration naturally makes your state less ethnically pure therefore robbing the state's raison d'etre, yet the free movement of people is considered a cornerstone to the modern cosmopolitan world.

The notion of states based on ethnicity has led to unprecedented peace in Europe. Around the world, multiethnic states tend to be highly unstable and one of the main (justifiable) criticisms of colonialism is that it created states with no concerns as to the demographics living there. Your utopian vision leads only to war and destruction.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

had pan arab socialism had a chance to fully take root, we'd likely have seen a decline of religiously motivated conflicts in the middle east

Yes, one of the US' big mistakes in the 70's/80's was supporting radical Islamists against secular socialists in the Middle East and South Asia. They were NOT the lesser of two evils. We funded the precursors to the Taliban, Al-Queda, and possibly Bin Ladin himself in Afghanistan against the socialist government. Socialism never killed 3,000 Americans on US soil.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

had pan arab socialism had a chance to fully take root, we'd likely have seen a decline of religiously motivated conflicts in the middle east

Yes, one of the US' big mistakes in the 70's/80's was supporting radical Islamists against secular socialists in the Middle East and South Asia. They were NOT the lesser of two evils. We funded the precursors to the Taliban, Al-Queda, and possibly Bin Ladin himself in Afghanistan against the socialist government. Socialism never killed 3,000 Americans on US soil.

The USSR was more evil than the Mujahedeen and its also false to say the Mujahedeen was the same as the Taliban.

It was not the same, it was the precursor. If the USSR stayed in charge there would be no Taliban and no 9/11.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Theoretically, I agree with the idea Israel should just drop the idea of being a Jewish State simply because I think defining your country excessively through a religion or race is naturally bigoted - but that multicultural interpretation can also be validly interpreted as something that weakens the idea of national identity that many places have and WEAKENS diversity too because of that.

Like, if Israel isn’t a Jewish majority State, then where you would find a Jewish majority State?

"If Utah isn't a Mormon majority state, then where would you find a Mormon majority state?"

Reactionary Libertarian:

The notion of states based on ethnicity has led to unprecedented peace in Europe.

It helped create World War II and led to the Yugoslavian genocides, which were only 30 years ago.

If you believe in states based on ethnicity, you're saying Hitler was justified for the Anschluss and taking the Sudetanland. You're saying modern-day Republika Srpska should be ceded by Bosnia and become part of Serbia. (The Balkans as a whole would be greatly redrawn, I'll appoint you to be the guy that gets to deal with the aftermath of that.) You believe Turkish Cyprus should be recognized as a country because the people on that side of Cyprus are ethnically different from those in the South. Quebec should be its own separate country on the American border, splitting the rest of Canada in two. All Indian and First Nations reservations in the U.S. and Canada become sovereign. Sections of the American Southwest should become a new Latino-based state. You believe that the state of Belgium should disappear. You believe that there needs to be a bunch of Arab/Muslim-based island states all around Europe that would make it look like all the German minor states prior to confederation. You believe Hungary should get larger. You believe that all Russian-dominated exclaves outside Russia's borders should be assumed into Russia proper. While Russia would probably then separate into, I don't know, 10-20 different countries. Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq should get disintegrated. Israel should be made smaller to have a section ceded for its residents that are Arabs.

That is your principle you stated of nation-states based on ethnicity.

I think you have grossly misunderstood me. I am saying that empires, multiethnic states and states with a large ethnic population outside their proper borders have more war. You listed a bunch of examples where this happened. Yugoslavia has a war because it was multiethnic! Breaking it up into states for Serbs, Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, etc. has lead to peace! The solution to Hitler wanting to take areas where Germans lived was forcing all those Germans to move to Germany, thus voiding the claims.  This isn’t a question of whether people “should” be able to get along in multiethnic states, in an ideal world. It’s just noting reality and the fact that when each ethnicity has its own state, there is much more peace. It doesn’t mean we should actively try to redraw borders, but it does mean that borders that divide different ethnicities are more peaceful. And it means saying Israel and the Palestinians should NOT share one secular state is the pragmatic, pro-human rights position.  

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Theoretically, I agree with the idea Israel should just drop the idea of being a Jewish State simply because I think defining your country excessively through a religion or race is naturally bigoted - but that multicultural interpretation can also be validly interpreted as something that weakens the idea of national identity that many places have and WEAKENS diversity too because of that.

Like, if Israel isn’t a Jewish majority State, then where you would find a Jewish majority State?

"If Utah isn't a Mormon majority state, then where would you find a Mormon majority state?"

Reactionary Libertarian:

The notion of states based on ethnicity has led to unprecedented peace in Europe.

It helped create World War II and led to the Yugoslavian genocides, which were only 30 years ago.

If you believe in states based on ethnicity, you're saying Hitler was justified for the Anschluss and taking the Sudetanland. You're saying modern-day Republika Srpska should be ceded by Bosnia and become part of Serbia. (The Balkans as a whole would be greatly redrawn, I'll appoint you to be the guy that gets to deal with the aftermath of that.) You believe Turkish Cyprus should be recognized as a country because the people on that side of Cyprus are ethnically different from those in the South. Quebec should be its own separate country on the American border, splitting the rest of Canada in two. All Indian and First Nations reservations in the U.S. and Canada become sovereign. Sections of the American Southwest should become a new Latino-based state. You believe that the state of Belgium should disappear. You believe that there needs to be a bunch of Arab/Muslim-based island states all around Europe that would make it look like all the German minor states prior to confederation. You believe Hungary should get larger. You believe that all Russian-dominated exclaves outside Russia's borders should be assumed into Russia proper. While Russia would probably then separate into, I don't know, 10-20 different countries. Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq should get disintegrated. Israel should be made smaller to have a section ceded for its residents that are Arabs.

That is your principle you stated of nation-states based on ethnicity.

I think you have grossly misunderstood me. I am saying that empires, multiethnic states and states with a large ethnic population outside their proper borders have more war. You listed a bunch of examples where this happened. Yugoslavia has a war because it was multiethnic! Breaking it up into states for Serbs, Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, etc. has lead to peace! The solution to Hitler wanting to take areas where Germans lived was forcing all those Germans to move to Germany, thus voiding the claims.  This isn’t a question of whether people “should” be able to get along in multiethnic states, in an ideal world. It’s just noting reality and the fact that when each ethnicity has its own state, there is much more peace. It doesn’t mean we should actively try to redraw borders, but it does mean that borders that divide different ethnicities are more peaceful. And it means saying Israel and the Palestinians should NOT share one secular state is the pragmatic, pro-human rights position.

I think you need to read history more.

(You realize the ethnic-based states were all created after World War I, not World War II right?)

They started being created around WWI, but there were still many ethnicities outside the borders of the states, and conquering other areas was still seen as acceptable. WWII started because Hitler wanted lands where Germans lived but were outside of Germany. After WWII there were population transfers and things were much more peaceful. The wars afterwards- like Yugoslavia- were about ethnic groups breaking away for their own states. Wars in post-colonial Africa are common because of borders that don't take tribes into account. It's clear the idea that ideally, each ethnic group gets its own state has been great for peace and stability. Do you think the way colonial powers set borders in Africa and the Middle East were acceptable? If you don't, why not?

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Fundamentally, I think there are three (not all mutually exclusive) possibilities to explain why Biden isn't breaking harder from Israel than he actually is.

1. He thinks American aid to Israel gives the US vitally-needed leverage to moderate Israel's conduct, to force Netanyahu to a peace table eventually, or to force him out of the PM's seat entirely.

2. He would like to distance himself from Israel but thinks that it would be politically suicidal, whether in terms of opinion within the Democratic Party or the views of Americans in general.

3. He genuinely thinks supporting Israel is the right thing to do morally-he may oppose certain actions of theirs but in general will be behind Israel to the end. There's lots of evidence that points to this.

I don't know which of these is more prominent in his decision-making (I do think they're probably all there to some extent), but a Biden policy on Israel led more by the first of these would probably end up looking pretty different from one guided by the third one, which is closest to what we have now. A first option-led policy would look more like either Bernie or Fetterman.

Fetterman seems to be Option 3 to me.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Latest vote in UN on ceasefire.  Note Argentina vote given new government

These are really sick people. There was a ceasefire. Then the terrorist death cult ended the ceasefire because they didn’t want to release the hostages they raped.

The lack of self-aware is astounding.

When the rest of the world is against you, it's time to reconsider.

Jews aren’t going to agree to be killed again. Sorry. We know the rest of the world is against us. We have an army now and no amount of crying about “human rights” will change that. The good news is that the pro-Hamas side has no actual power to stop Israel other than crying that acshully, destroying Hamas is bad for Israel.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Latest vote in UN on ceasefire.  Note Argentina vote given new government

These are really sick people. There was a ceasefire. Then the terrorist death cult ended the ceasefire because they didn’t want to release the hostages they raped.

The lack of self-aware is astounding.

When the rest of the world is against you, it's time to reconsider.

Jews aren’t going to agree to be killed again. Sorry. We know the rest of the world is against us. We have an army now and no amount of crying about “human rights” will change that. The good news is that the pro-Hamas side has no actual power to stop Israel other than crying that acshully, destroying Hamas is bad for Israel.

With Israel creating more and more foes, the IDF would be overwhelmed.

The protection from the United States is what is keeping Israel's foes from rolling right over Israel.

Bibi should be kissing Biden's feet every chance that he gets.

That's not true. America is helpful but Israel is strong enough on it's own. Also if Israel really felt existentially threatened and abandoned they would become extremely brutal, do ethnic cleansing or even use nukes before they allow the Jewish people to become stateless again. So if you care about Palestinian rights you should want America supporting Israel.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Why do people think the war is from Netanyahu? The generals are at least as hawkish on Gaza, probably more, then Netanyahu. The divide between the two is in settlements.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Why do people think the war is from Netanyahu? The generals are at least as hawkish on Gaza, probably more, then Netanyahu. The divide between the two is in settlements.

I don't think anyone here believes that Gantz, Bennet or Lapid would have acted any differently in response to October 7th or that the generals aren't the ones choosing the targets to bomb. But after 13 years of Netanyahu, it's hard not to speculate that he has his own motives. That the only acceptable end game for him would be Hamas not only destroyed, but Gaza having been turned into a crater.

Netanyahu’s motives are to stay in power. That’s it. He’s probably more dovish on Gaza than the generals.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

What does the killing of 3 unarmed hostages imply about how the IDF is engaging with civilians in Gaza? It seems pretty unlikely that this is a one-off. Of course, I would fully expect Hamas terrorists to try to wave a white flag and then attack.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

https://twitter.com/AdHaque110/status/1737677067473367294?t=r8mCWCIhPjvsEnJCTDA0...
Down to the leviathans of Micronesia and Nauru.

Even Argentina's crazy new gov voted yea, wow.

No people have the “right” to self-determination. This concept is one of the worst ideas of the modern age. Not even the strongest supporters of the Palestinian cause believe it would be a thriving liberal democracy making positive contributions to the world.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

No people have the “right” to self-determination. This concept is one of the worst ideas of the modern age. Not even the strongest supporters of the Palestinian cause believe it would be a thriving liberal democracy making positive contributions to the world.

A complete non-sequitur.

And of course given what you say, Israel has no such "right" either.

Yes, Israel only has a “right” to exist in the sense that they have the ability and will to defend themselves and secure their own existence. They have no fundamental “human right” to exist and it’s preposterous to suggest that. It’s a country, not a person. We should still support Israel because it’s a net positive for the world and is certainly superior to any Arab Muslim state that would replace it.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

This Christmas season, don't just think about Bethlehem 2,023 years ago but think about it being under tyrannical foreign rule right now.
‘Without work and hope’: Bethlehem’s Christmas economy bleeds from Gaza war

The PA's rule may be tyrannical but I'm not sure you can describe it as foreign.

Gosh you're delusional if you think the PA are sovereign anywhere in Palestine.

I don't see how anyone can deny that the PA is currently in control of much of Judea, including Bethlehem. The government in the area holds elections to the PA rather than to the Knesset, no Jews are able to safely reside there as is the case in the rest of PA-occupied Judea, etc

Lol, “PA-occupied Judea”

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Nakba wouldn't have happened "in a perfect world".

In a perfect world, the Romans wouldn’t have kicked the Jews out of Judea.

In reality, we don’t live in a perfect world. Wars of conquest, land loss and ethnic cleaning are extremely common in history. That doesn’t excuse what happened to thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, but it should put it in perspective. Palestinians have every right to be upset over what happened, but you just can’t respond to it by living as permanent refugees, electing terrorists as your government, and teaching your children to be suicide bombers. What’s happening in Gaza is not happening because of the Nakba, it’s happening because Palestinians have chosen to respond to the Nakba by starting a suicidal war with a neighbor much stronger than them. What happened to Palestinians in 1948 was by no means unique, and throughout history many people have responded to such tragedies by accepting reality and building a better life for their children and grandchildren. And if Palestinians did this, they would have a much higher quality of life, much more international support, and a much better chance and getting  at least some of their land back.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Nakba wouldn't have happened "in a perfect world".

In a perfect world, the Romans wouldn’t have kicked the Jews out of Judea.

In reality, we don’t live in a perfect world. Wars of conquest, land loss and ethnic cleaning are extremely common in history. That doesn’t excuse what happened to thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, but it should put it in perspective. Palestinians have every right to be upset over what happened, but you just can’t respond to it by living as permanent refugees, electing terrorists as your government, and teaching your children to be suicide bombers. What’s happening in Gaza is not happening because of the Nakba, it’s happening because Palestinians have chosen to respond to the Nakba by starting a suicidal war with a neighbor much stronger than them. What happened to Palestinians in 1948 was by no means unique, and throughout history many people have responded to such tragedies by accepting reality and building a better life for their children and grandchildren. And if Palestinians did this, they would have a much higher quality of life, much more international support, and a much better chance and getting  at least some of their land back.

Ok but this essentially is a might makes right / law of the jungle argument.

“Might makes right and we live in the world we live in” has its flaws but it’s a lot better than the “my great-grandfather was here first” argument, no matter whether it’s being put forth by Jews, Palestinians, American Indians or European White Nationalists. The main issue with wars of conquest today isn’t “stealing land”, since all land is stolen, it’s that modern warfare is so destructive and deadly that all war must be discouraged, including conquest. If not for the advent of nuclear weapons and the devastation of WWI and WWII, wars of conquest would still be acceptable today. That’s why conquest was banned, not because of the “borders are sacred” nonsense.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Nakba wouldn't have happened "in a perfect world".

In a perfect world, the Romans wouldn’t have kicked the Jews out of Judea.

In reality, we don’t live in a perfect world. Wars of conquest, land loss and ethnic cleaning are extremely common in history. That doesn’t excuse what happened to thousands of Palestinian Arabs in 1948, but it should put it in perspective. Palestinians have every right to be upset over what happened, but you just can’t respond to it by living as permanent refugees, electing terrorists as your government, and teaching your children to be suicide bombers. What’s happening in Gaza is not happening because of the Nakba, it’s happening because Palestinians have chosen to respond to the Nakba by starting a suicidal war with a neighbor much stronger than them. What happened to Palestinians in 1948 was by no means unique, and throughout history many people have responded to such tragedies by accepting reality and building a better life for their children and grandchildren. And if Palestinians did this, they would have a much higher quality of life, much more international support, and a much better chance and getting  at least some of their land back.

So much this. See the Greeks/Turks in the early 1920s and Germans post-1945. I don’t see a demand for the Greeks to have a right of return to western Anatolia (where they lived since antiquity) or Germans in Pomerania/East Prussia. Both were also, like the Arab coalition in 1948, the aggressors in their respective conflicts too. Don’t see why special exemption should exist here.

Thanks to the EU’s freedom of movement, ethnic Germans can return to Pomerania, Bohemia etc. But most don’t want to. The solution for Palestinian refugees is obvious- they should be given the right to return to a Palestinian state. And maybe, if relations with Israel improve sometime down the line, Israel and Palestine can have an EU-style relationship and Palestinians can live in Jaffa and Jews can live in Hebron. But getting to that point means not demanding millions of refugees and their descendants move to Israel as a part of a negotiated solution. Like I said before, accepting reality as it is could allow Palestinians to get a lot of what they want.