Israel-Gaza war

[GeneralMacArthur]

I will look at 4 examples:

1) The 2nd Battle of Fallujah (7 November – 23 December 2004; 1 month, 2 weeks and 2 days)
2) The Battle of Huế (31 January – 2 March 1968; 1 month and 2 days)
3) The Battle of Berlin (16 April – 2 May 1945; 2 weeks and 2 days)
4) The Battle of Nanking (1937) AKA the Rape of Nanking

This is an absolutely fantastic post

[GeneralMacArthur]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

People like myself and The Great Spectator (presumably) would disagree with 4/5.

Most of the leftists who've turned into Hamas supporters -- the people you see being assholes in the streets, reposting disinformation and lies, following Jackson Hinkle, etc. -- would disagree with 1/2 because they think Hamas is a bunch of FFs and depending on their audience will pretend to believe that 10/7 was either an awesome strike for liberation, an Israeli false flag, and a thing that never happened.

There are also many liberals who agree with 1/2, but disagree with 3, making the conveniently non-disprovable claim that there's some sort of diplomatic peace settlement that could be reached with Hamas where peace and love and tolerance would wash over the region (but of course it is solely Israel's fault that this hasn't happened, thus making them responsible for the destruction of the war).

However, it seems like the mainstream position in the Democratic Party right now is to believe in all of 1-5.  I was dismayed to find that my relatives -- who voluntarily brought this up despite my insistence on not discussing politics at holidays -- hold this position.  Specifically they are invested in paying lip service to the evil of 10/7 and the abhorrence of Hamas, but downplay it relative to the subject they're much more interested in talking about, Israeli atrocities.  And this seems to be in service of making it much easier on the conscience to believe 5.



Now, I did not bring this up to my relatives, because my paramount desire in political discussions with my family is to end them as quickly as possible.  But if 1-5 is your position, then the logical follow-up is that you should be advocating for American military involvement in Palestine.

After all, if you acknowledge that Hamas is evil and must be eradicated, and that its eradication is a matter of urgency and importance, then you also acknowledge that it would be a great evil for Hamas to be allowed to continue to exist.  But that is what would happen were Israel to end its war.

You also claim to believe that Israel's conduct has been abnormally wicked, that they are visiting easily-avoidable harm upon the Palestinians, that their military conduct is guided not by a desire to defeat Hamas but by a malicious desire to hurt the innocent Palestinian people.  Presumably then, you believe that there is some power in the world that would be able to conduct operations against Hamas without inflicting this kind of civilian damage -- because that power would not be malicious/genocidal/whatever.

Thus, the only way to defeat Hamas (avoiding the evil of Hamas's continued existence) without making Israel do it (avoiding the evil of Israel's continued atrocities) is for some more ethical military power to step in and do it instead of Israel.  And which power?  What is the supposedly ethical army that can defeat a terrorist group without inflicting massive civilian destruction?  Could it perhaps be the one that just defeated ISIS less than a decade ago?


In other words, if you think it's so easy to defeat a deeply-rooted terror group in an urban area that uses civilians as human shields and doesn't follow one iota of the laws of war, and to do so without incurring even minimal civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure, why don't you step in and show Israel how it's done?

Unless, of course, you think at this point that Hamas must simply be allowed to live on.

Which I will never agree with you on.  Not now, not ever.  Hamas must die.

[DavidB.]

I do wonder how much many young Israelis are brainwashed by fundamentalist US "Christians".

The answer is none. Why would that be the case?

I will look at 4 examples:

1) The 2nd Battle of Fallujah (7 November – 23 December 2004; 1 month, 2 weeks and 2 days)
2) The Battle of Huế (31 January – 2 March 1968; 1 month and 2 days)
3) The Battle of Berlin (16 April – 2 May 1945; 2 weeks and 2 days)
4) The Battle of Nanking (1937) AKA the Rape of Nanking

This is an absolutely fantastic post

Seconded.

[pppolitics]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

[GeneralMacArthur]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

[Meclazine for Israel]

UNRWA agency coming under fire as being operated/controlled by Hamas.

IDF Intercepted Comms

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1W43BaIdui/

In addition, one of the released hostages made an accusation that he was being held in the attic of a Doctor's home working for UNRWA.

https://m.jpost.com/middle-east/article-775777

So that would suggest the Doctors of UNRWA are Hamas operatives or closely linked to Hamas. Doctors are storing hostages, but the UN cannot see the condition of hostages.

The interesting thing about this war is 95% of the Israeli's suspicions and accusations have turned out to be true. eg. Hospital car park bombed by Hamas.

Whereas less than 5% of Hamas suspicions and accusations, some originating inside the USA, have turned out to be true. President Joe Biden has come out on multiple occasions saying the Hamas data is not to be trusted.

Example: Israel accused of harvesting Palestinian organs.

Rashida Tlaib

https://www.instagram.com/p/C1YTYsprJKO/

The IDF now suggesting the UNRWA is pro-Hamas.

As we peel back the layers of the Hamas onion, the ugly truth is now visible.

[pppolitics]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

[Meclazine for Israel]

ABC News Australia does a huge about face on two Australian's killed in Lebanon.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-28/funeral-australian-brothers-lebanon-israeli-air-strike/103269076

Turns out the brothers were associates with terrorist group Hezbollah.

When this was pointed out, the ABC News website quickly changed all their commentary.

[Devils30]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

[Vosem]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

You know, this has been commonly cited since Che said it, but it is wrong; ideologies can and have been destroyed by force. The Soviet Union destroyed both Nazism and the Basmachi, and many/most varieties of the White movement. (Hell, the Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s were actually pretty successful at destroying Guevarism, which in its classic form survives only in the most backwards parts of LatAm, like Nicaragua and Cuba).

If people who are driven into Hamas's arms are driven to take self-destructive actions, well, it once again seems like a victory (and not even really a disputable one) for the Israeli state.



The image is of an ideology very like that of Hamas being destroyed, present-day Uzbekistan, 1920. You don't even need 21st-century guided missiles for this.

[Vosem]

Восток - дело тонкое.

[GeneralMacArthur]

At the Camp David summit, Israel offered loads of financial compensation to the Palestinians in exchange for abandoning the right-of-return demand.  Arafat rejected this.  I think Israel would be more than willing to pay pretty much any amount of money to secure peace.  What they're not willing to do is to hand over tons of money to the Palestinians as some sort of speculative operation to try and make things good enough that Palestinians will subsequently decide to accept peace.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Israel's chief media whip on Fox News suggests Israel will move 2 Million Gazans to South America, Europe and other regions to get de-radicalised before cleaning out all of the military capability in Gaza.

Shipping Gazans Overseas

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1Y97D5OyUt/

Israel's main game now is de-radicalizing the Islamists from Gaza who have 'lost their way'.

[mileslunn]

In terms of two state solution, has anyone thought of dealing separately with Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip as seems would be easier?

Golan Heights: Previously part of Syria but populated mostly by Druze, so not sure they wish to join either Syria or a Palestinian state.  I would not be shocked if put to a referendum, most would vote to join Israel as while not great, at least would probably be treated better than in other two.  Arab Christians 10-15% of Arab population before 1948 while today only 2.5% in West Bank, less than 1% in Gaza while 10% of Arabs in Israel so that suggests Palestine is not great if you are Arab but not Muslim.

East Jerusalem: Dividing the city into two separate countries is totally unrealistic.  Only feasible if they have open borders like EU does, but fat chance either side would agree to that.  Having it jointly controlled or international community agreeing to recognize it as part of Israel on condition all Palestinians living there given automatic Israeli citizenship (today they are not offered such) and no more evictions from land, any Israeli settlements have to be purchased in a fair market transaction seems more realistic.

West Bank: Unlike Gaza, you have almost 500,000 settlers and dismantling all Israeli settlements is not feasible.  At same time West Bank is in somewhat better shape economically than Gaza so if its own state could work or at least better chance than Gaza.  Main thing would be making it contiguous and dismantling settlements that obstruct that or perhaps even doing land swaps as majority of settlements near Green line while many Arab villages in Israel near Green line so swapping two could work while dismantling settlements deep into West Bank.  Other is a freeze and ban any Israelis from moving to settlements while requiring all children born there to leave once reach adulthood but at same time let adults living there remain there thus would disappear once they die off.  Never mind Israel doesn't trust Palestinians and since highest points on Ridge are in West Bank, legitimate worry if transferred to Palestinian state it would be easy to launch an attack on Israel as many won't accept a Palestinian state; they want Israel wiped off the map. 

Gaza Strip: Doesn't have the settlement issue like West Bank, but is a lot poorer and could easily become a failed state.  I can see how Israel might prefer two to be separate.  Best option here would be transferring Gaza to Egypt but zero chance that happens as Egypt doesn't want them as high cost and fears more terrorism.

[CumbrianLefty]

I do wonder how much many young Israelis are brainwashed by fundamentalist US "Christians".

The answer is none. Why would that be the case?

I know this post has been mocked, but is it really the case there is no crossover at all? Especially in these days of social media.

[Silent Hunter]

At the Camp David summit, Israel offered loads of financial compensation to the Palestinians in exchange for abandoning the right-of-return demand.  Arafat rejected this.  I think Israel would be more than willing to pay pretty much any amount of money to secure peace.  What they're not willing to do is to hand over tons of money to the Palestinians as some sort of speculative operation to try and make things good enough that Palestinians will subsequently decide to accept peace.

They were already doing that in a way - a lot of Palestinians were employed in Israel before October 7.

[jaichind]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-allies-reluctant-red-sea-task-force-2023-12-28/

"US allies reluctant on Red Sea task force"

[Epaminondas]

The image is of an ideology very like that of Hamas being destroyed, present-day Uzbekistan, 1920. You don't even need 21st-century guided missiles for this.

Your whole worldview seems divided between naive forms of good and evil.

A mere glance at the event you describe shows that it took 5 years of brutal war, hundreds of thousands of deaths and countrywide devastation, with lasting effects of demographics and farming over a century later.

Deeming this a viable solution for Gaza is foolish and blinkered.

[CumbrianLefty]

Plus the obvious point that present day Uzbekistan is hardly a paradise, even a full century on.

[Open Source Intelligence]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

You know, this has been commonly cited since Che said it, but it is wrong; ideologies can and have been destroyed by force. The Soviet Union destroyed both Nazism and the Basmachi, and many/most varieties of the White movement. (Hell, the Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s were actually pretty successful at destroying Guevarism, which in its classic form survives only in the most backwards parts of LatAm, like Nicaragua and Cuba).

If people who are driven into Hamas's arms are driven to take self-destructive actions, well, it once again seems like a victory (and not even really a disputable one) for the Israeli state.



The image is of an ideology very like that of Hamas being destroyed, present-day Uzbekistan, 1920. You don't even need 21st-century guided missiles for this.

You're reaching. Let alone the notion of destroying ideologies in an era of the internet...good luck.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Israel's chief media whip on Fox News suggests Israel will move 2 Million Gazans to South America, Europe and other regions to get de-radicalised before cleaning out all of the military capability in Gaza.

Who is transporting them, if Israel these apparently radicalized Gazans will then agree to be processed by Israeli military and fly on Israeli planes, and what countries are accepting them and then paying for the refugees, now having the "duty" of de-radicalizing them when it's clear from Europe some have not been?

If the Israeli government thinks this is a serious proposal, it's clearly delusional.

I've yet to hear a good proposal from Israel that ensures their long-term peace other than we're going to kick them all out and de facto take the land. It's not all that different from Russia's mentality in eastern Ukraine. And that still doesn't ensure your long-term peace unless you go and kill all the boys under 18 or sterilize all the girls.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

The image is of an ideology very like that of Hamas being destroyed, present-day Uzbekistan, 1920. You don't even need 21st-century guided missiles for this.

Your whole worldview seems divided between naive forms of good and evil.

A mere glance at the event you describe shows that it took 5 years of brutal war, hundreds of thousands of deaths and countrywide devastation, with lasting effects of demographics and farming over a century later.

Deeming this a viable solution for Gaza is foolish and blinkered.

You see, this is exactly what Vosem desires. As long as the perogatives of the Israeli state is fulfilled, and the "ideology of Palestinian liberationism" (i.e. any hopes and dreams of the independence of the Palestinian people) is permanently squashed under the Israeli jackboot, then it doesn't matter how many civilians die for him to be satisfied.

And it's telling how Vosem sees the Soviet deemed "Basmachi" movement as equivalent to Hamas.

[pppolitics]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

There has to be compensation for Nakba.

In other words, those who were displaced and their descendants get cash payment in exchange for giving up their rights to return.

The compensation needs to be of real value, not a penny per square meter.

If they refuse, I guess there are some rural desert areas in Israel that they can be given.

[DavidB.]

I do wonder how much many young Israelis are brainwashed by fundamentalist US "Christians".

The answer is none. Why would that be the case?

I know this post has been mocked, but is it really the case there is no crossover at all? Especially in these days of social media.

I wasn't mocking your post, but yes, there is no crossover. The Israeli mainstream bubble and the American mainstream bubble have some overlap in terms of pop culture (although Israel is quite inward-looking in general, especially for such a small country), but there is no overlap whatsoever between the US evangelical bubble and the Israeli mainstream bubble, just like there is no overlap between the US evangelical bubble and the Dutch mainstream bubble.

Israeli kids don't need US evangelicals as 'inspiration' to become nationalists, because they've got plenty of reasons for themselves already - such as 7 October, barrages of rockets being fired on your home, your friends and family fighting in Gaza, your grandparents being expelled from their homelands in the Middle East and Europe for being Jewish and often still being around to tell the stories...

[Comrade Funk]

I do wonder how much many young Israelis are brainwashed by fundamentalist US "Christians".

The answer is none. Why would that be the case?

I know this post has been mocked, but is it really the case there is no crossover at all? Especially in these days of social media.

I wasn't mocking your post, but yes, there is no crossover. The Israeli mainstream bubble and the American mainstream bubble have some overlap in terms of pop culture (although Israel is quite inward-looking in general, especially for such a small country), but there is no overlap whatsoever between the US evangelical bubble and the Israeli mainstream bubble, just like there is no overlap between the US evangelical bubble and the Dutch mainstream bubble.

Israeli kids don't need US evangelicals as 'inspiration' to become nationalists, because they've got plenty of reasons for themselves already - such as 7 October, barrages of rockets being fired on your home, your friends and family fighting in Gaza, your grandparents being expelled from their homelands in the Middle East and Europe for being Jewish and often still being around to tell the stories...

And their ethnonationalist ideology results in the typical outcome of such beliefs: a disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians. Often, it comes with glee. Now normally I wouldn't get overworked about this (it's common), but unfortunately my government is funding these maniacs and most of the Biden hacks on here seem okay with it. They champion him for being a "dove" because of Afghanistan, while funding a racist government in their quest for revenge - no strings attached.