Israel-Gaza war

[Agafin]

Israel has set up pumps in Gaza for flooding Hamas tunnels with seawater — WSJ

Israel has readied plans to flood Hamas’s system of tunnels under the Gaza Strip with water pumped from the Mediterranean Sea, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Citing US officials, the report says the Israel Defense Forces last month set up five large water pumps near the al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza City, which are capable of flooding the subterranean network within weeks by pumping thousands of cubic meters of water per hour into the tunnels.

The officials say Israel alerted the US about the plan last month, but has not yet decided on whether to implement it.

According to the report, opinions in Biden administration were mixed, with some officials expressing concern about the Israeli plan while others say they back Israel’s efforts to destroy the tunnels and say there isn’t necessarily any American opposition.

Among the concerns cited in the report were potential damage to Gaza’s aquifer and soil, if seawater and hazardous substances in the tunnels seeps into them.

Interesting. This would probably be the "final solution" to the hamas problem.

[Hnv1]

Israel has set up pumps in Gaza for flooding Hamas tunnels with seawater — WSJ

Israel has readied plans to flood Hamas’s system of tunnels under the Gaza Strip with water pumped from the Mediterranean Sea, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Citing US officials, the report says the Israel Defense Forces last month set up five large water pumps near the al-Shati refugee camp in Gaza City, which are capable of flooding the subterranean network within weeks by pumping thousands of cubic meters of water per hour into the tunnels.

The officials say Israel alerted the US about the plan last month, but has not yet decided on whether to implement it.

According to the report, opinions in Biden administration were mixed, with some officials expressing concern about the Israeli plan while others say they back Israel’s efforts to destroy the tunnels and say there isn’t necessarily any American opposition.

Among the concerns cited in the report were potential damage to Gaza’s aquifer and soil, if seawater and hazardous substances in the tunnels seeps into them.

Interesting. This would probably be the "final solution" to the hamas problem.

I doubt that it will be used as a wide-scale move, and I doubt it will be that efficient. I think it will be used to smoke out the Hamas leadership in the tunnel complex to the west of Khan Younis

[Arizona Iced Tea]

The reason why "But Hamas"  fails as a justification for Israeli brutally is because Hamas is a terrorist organization. A civilized nation like Israel should be holding themselves to a much higher standard.

No, the same laws should apply to all militaries and nations. Otherwise you're just hoping "the civilized nation"/whoever takes those laws seriously loses.

The difference in rhetoric is just that Hamas does not bother to deny war crimes, so there is no conversation to be had there, while Israel puts such ridiculous effort into not doing them that catching some slip-up (which, amusingly, doesn't seem to have happened yet in this conflict) would damage their credibility, and so people feel very motivated to go look for "Israeli war crimes". A very important task for the future of democracies being able to wage wars at all is to prevent people like this from having important positions in media organizations, though hopefully this can be neatly solved by having monopolistic media organizations not exist in the near future.

You don't get to be as barbaric as a terrorist organization and also hold yourself to a moral high ground.

[pppolitics]

The reason why "But Hamas"  fails as a justification for Israeli brutally is because Hamas is a terrorist organization. A civilized nation like Israel should be holding themselves to a much higher standard.

No, the same laws should apply to all militaries and nations. Otherwise you're just hoping "the civilized nation"/whoever takes those laws seriously loses.

The difference in rhetoric is just that Hamas does not bother to deny war crimes, so there is no conversation to be had there, while Israel puts such ridiculous effort into not doing them that catching some slip-up (which, amusingly, doesn't seem to have happened yet in this conflict) would damage their credibility, and so people feel very motivated to go look for "Israeli war crimes". A very important task for the future of democracies being able to wage wars at all is to prevent people like this from having important positions in media organizations, though hopefully this can be neatly solved by having monopolistic media organizations not exist in the near future.

You don't get to be as barbaric as a terrorist organization and also hold yourself to a moral high ground.

If Israel's government wants to use the same standard that Hamas does, the international community gets to consider Israel's government a terrorist organization the same way it considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

I doubt that Vosem would accept that.

[Vosem]

The reason why "But Hamas"  fails as a justification for Israeli brutally is because Hamas is a terrorist organization. A civilized nation like Israel should be holding themselves to a much higher standard.

No, the same laws should apply to all militaries and nations. Otherwise you're just hoping "the civilized nation"/whoever takes those laws seriously loses.

The difference in rhetoric is just that Hamas does not bother to deny war crimes, so there is no conversation to be had there, while Israel puts such ridiculous effort into not doing them that catching some slip-up (which, amusingly, doesn't seem to have happened yet in this conflict) would damage their credibility, and so people feel very motivated to go look for "Israeli war crimes". A very important task for the future of democracies being able to wage wars at all is to prevent people like this from having important positions in media organizations, though hopefully this can be neatly solved by having monopolistic media organizations not exist in the near future.

You don't get to be as barbaric as a terrorist organization and also hold yourself to a moral high ground.

If Israel's government wants to use the same standard that Hamas does, the international community gets to consider Israel's government a terrorist organization the same way it considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

I doubt that Vosem would accept that.

Indeed, obviously not. (You shouldn't accept it either!) I've made it clear that the area belongs to Israel according to international law; that it is one of the goals of extant Palestinian liberationist organizations to commit genocide, which is not true for Israel; that Israel does not use human-shield-style tactics; or take hostages without charging them with some specific crime. The first two of these are the most important for understanding the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict and why Palestinian liberationism should be destroyed; the third and fourth for understanding why Hamas specifically is a terrorist organization.

There's no "both sides-ing" the conflict. One side is incredibly wrong. The other is right, but that argument is sort of academic based on how wrong the other side is.

[windjammer]

The reason why "But Hamas"  fails as a justification for Israeli brutally is because Hamas is a terrorist organization. A civilized nation like Israel should be holding themselves to a much higher standard.

No, the same laws should apply to all militaries and nations. Otherwise you're just hoping "the civilized nation"/whoever takes those laws seriously loses.

The difference in rhetoric is just that Hamas does not bother to deny war crimes, so there is no conversation to be had there, while Israel puts such ridiculous effort into not doing them that catching some slip-up (which, amusingly, doesn't seem to have happened yet in this conflict) would damage their credibility, and so people feel very motivated to go look for "Israeli war crimes". A very important task for the future of democracies being able to wage wars at all is to prevent people like this from having important positions in media organizations, though hopefully this can be neatly solved by having monopolistic media organizations not exist in the near future.

You don't get to be as barbaric as a terrorist organization and also hold yourself to a moral high ground.

If Israel's government wants to use the same standard that Hamas does, the international community gets to consider Israel's government a terrorist organization the same way it considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

I doubt that Vosem would accept that.

Indeed, obviously not. (You shouldn't accept it either!) I've made it clear that the area belongs to Israel according to international law; that it is one of the goals of extant Palestinian liberationist organizations to commit genocide, which is not true for Israel; that Israel does not use human-shield-style tactics; or take hostages without charging them with some specific crime. The first two of these are the most important for understanding the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict and why Palestinian liberationism should be destroyed; the third and fourth for understanding why Hamas specifically is a terrorist organization.

There's no "both sides-ing" the conflict. One side is incredibly wrong. The other is right, but that argument is sort of academic based on how wrong the other side is.

I clearly believe that Hamas needs to be fully destroyed but at the same time let's be honest as long as there is no viable future for a Palestinian state it's obvious that some terrorist groups are going to reappear.

Palestine needs to have its own state based on the Oslo agreements.

[Vosem]

The reason why "But Hamas"  fails as a justification for Israeli brutally is because Hamas is a terrorist organization. A civilized nation like Israel should be holding themselves to a much higher standard.

No, the same laws should apply to all militaries and nations. Otherwise you're just hoping "the civilized nation"/whoever takes those laws seriously loses.

The difference in rhetoric is just that Hamas does not bother to deny war crimes, so there is no conversation to be had there, while Israel puts such ridiculous effort into not doing them that catching some slip-up (which, amusingly, doesn't seem to have happened yet in this conflict) would damage their credibility, and so people feel very motivated to go look for "Israeli war crimes". A very important task for the future of democracies being able to wage wars at all is to prevent people like this from having important positions in media organizations, though hopefully this can be neatly solved by having monopolistic media organizations not exist in the near future.

You don't get to be as barbaric as a terrorist organization and also hold yourself to a moral high ground.

If Israel's government wants to use the same standard that Hamas does, the international community gets to consider Israel's government a terrorist organization the same way it considers Hamas a terrorist organization.

I doubt that Vosem would accept that.

Indeed, obviously not. (You shouldn't accept it either!) I've made it clear that the area belongs to Israel according to international law; that it is one of the goals of extant Palestinian liberationist organizations to commit genocide, which is not true for Israel; that Israel does not use human-shield-style tactics; or take hostages without charging them with some specific crime. The first two of these are the most important for understanding the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict and why Palestinian liberationism should be destroyed; the third and fourth for understanding why Hamas specifically is a terrorist organization.

There's no "both sides-ing" the conflict. One side is incredibly wrong. The other is right, but that argument is sort of academic based on how wrong the other side is.

I clearly believe that Hamas needs to be fully destroyed but at the same time let's be honest as long as there is no viable future for a Palestinian state it's obvious that some terrorist groups are going to reappear.

Palestine needs to have its own state based on the Oslo agreements.

Sure, but that state needs a leadership which will not be revanchist. "Palestinian liberationism must be destroyed" doesn't mean there can't be a Palestinian state; there should be a Palestinian state. It just can't be a terror state.

[mileslunn]

In terms of solutions, not easy, but I almost think bitterness between both sides so strong only way for one is if US applies pressure to Israel and they can convince Arab nations to apply equally to Palestinian Authority.  I think problem is too much mistrust of other side.  Many Arabs still bitter about Nakba while Jews having been persecuted for centuries simply want their own state where they can live in peace.  Also amongst Mizrahi Jews, which are larger than Ashkenazi and tend to be more right wing; many are angry at Arabs for way they were treated before their families moved to Israel.  Lets remember while 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or left Israel after 1949, an even larger number of Jews in 50s were kicked out of Arab countries and had to move to Israel.  

There are essentially four separate areas and not sure you can solve all four in one and instead might be easier to do each alone.

East Jerusalem: Since city is fairly integrated, I only think splitting it would work if you had an EU style agreement with open borders.  Putting a border in middle of city with border checkpoints just not realistic.  And I don't think either side is open to an EU style agreement.  Instead offering Arabs in East Jerusalem Israeli citizenship seems better way forward or could like Northern Ireland give them option to choose citizenship if Palestinian state created.  Old city since a holy place for all three Abrahamic religions should no matter whose control under remain open to all those of Abrahamic faiths to visit and which quarter one lives in should be based on religion for those living in Old City.  

Golan Heights: Solution here is probably easiest, have a referendum excluding settlers on joining Israel with full citizenship rights.  Syria is a mess so doubt anyone wants to rejoin them.  Likewise Arabs in Golan are Druze not Muslim so I would suspect many weary of joining a Palestinian state as risk could fall under an Islamist regime that would persecute them.  And perhaps maybe have some autonomy but within Israel so sort of like Scotland is to UK.  Golan Heights ironically unlike Gaza has very low population density so lots of space but understand many don't want it overrun by settlers.  

Gaza Strip: First need to defeat Hamas but once done no reason region couldn't be more prosperous.  Being along coastline, could easily become a hub for cheap tourism for Europeans and even Israelis.  There are three options here:

1.  Be part of a Palestinian state and if so should build a closed off highway with no exits and fenced off so people can drive between both without going through border checkpoints.  But that involves solving West Bank issue.

2.  Become their own country separate from West Bank.  Real worry is Gaza is poorer and has more radicals than West Bank so Israel for security reasons probably weary of this.

3.  Join Egypt.  If only Egypt would agree to this, probably best option as Egypt is a reliable ally and could improve things.  But seems Egypt doesn't want them and rightly worries about problems it would create.  

West Bank

This is trickiest as realistically cannot dismantle all Israeli settlements like you did in Gaza and Sinai Peninsula.  But at same token being a bunch of islands where Palestinians have to go through checkpoints just to travel within own territory is not sustainable.  A few options are:

1.  Dismantle all settlements and become its own state.  This would likely break out into a civil war as most settlers won't leave easy and unlike Gaza and Sinai far more.

2.  Do land swaps as most settlements close to Green Line so only dismantle those deep into West Bank while Arab towns which are mostly close to Green Line would be transferred to Palestinian state.  Arabs who wished to remain Israeli could move to areas still in Israel.

3.  Establish an EU style agreement that removes all checkpoints and maintains separate governments but freedom to travel.  This could happen in two ways
 
a.  An EU style agreement with full free mobility of labour.  Doubt either side wants this as would
    give settlers free reign and expose Israel to potential demographic time bomb.

b.  Monaco/San Marino style agreement as both countries have open borders with EU, but citizens                  
     of those two can freely visit but not live and work in EU and likewise EU citizens can freely enter                    
     but cannot live and work there.  This would mean no change in control, removal of checkpoints
     while still protecting demographics in both

4.  Fully annex West Bank as part of Israel and offer full citizenship rights.  If only did this for West Bank not Gaza, there would be no immediate risk of Jews becoming a minority, however it would make it a lot more difficult for parties on right to win so I am guessing many would oppose this over that.  Could as a solution have Belgian or Bosnian style elections as in both people vote based on language spoken or ethnicity in case of Bosnia so Arabs would vote for separate parties than Jews.  Northern Ireland like this too.  Problem is would have to work together and that would be very tough.

So those are some thoughts, interested to hear what others think of them.  I also think refugee camps should be phased out.  Those seem to be hotbeds for radicals and they are overcrowded with few economic opportunities.  Since many born there, why not find ways to integrate them into larger Palestinian society.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Bruno from NYU

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0e8ReESRnP/

Bruno wants to overthrow the US Government and then remove support for Israel.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

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.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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.

[mileslunn]

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.

[Horus]

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.

[mileslunn]

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.

[Middle-aged Europe]

A statistic that blew my mind is that area-wise the entire Gaza Strip has a smaller size than the city of Bakersfield, California.

[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.

[mileslunn]

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. 

[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.

[Agafin]

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.

If I were jewish, I honestly wouldn't be fine living in any middle eastern country other than Israel. The jewish majority, and liberal democracy being important reasons why.

[CumbrianLefty]

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.

Indeed, but the fact that the "indigenous people" of Israel does not simply equal "Jews" remains.

[Meclazine for Israel]

It is interesting the Maori's dislike the negative Palestinian rallies in New Zealand. They don't want all that hate, confusion, negativity and complex debate about what has now become a terrorist state.

Maori's for Israel

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzivjIotB7i/

There are not many pro-Israeli rallies, but if you want a group singing your praises, these guys are the ones.

Israel would be very appreciative of their support.

The female singing ceremonies are also pretty special.

[pppolitics]

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.

[Lord Halifax]

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.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

A statistic that blew my mind is that area-wise the entire Gaza Strip has a smaller size than the city of Bakersfield, California.

It's basically half the size of NYC.

[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.