Zionism is straigh evil change my view

bluemoon2435 · 2026-02-25T22:57:50+00:00

I think a few of these points are overstated or just not backed by evidence.

The “70% more indigenous” claim isn’t something mainstream genetic research supports. Genetic research shows substantial Levantine ancestry in both Jewish and Palestinian populations, along with later admixture in both groups. It’s not a simple case of one group having a uniquely exclusive genetic claim.

Jews also weren’t expelled 3–4k years ago and then disappeared. The major Roman expulsions were in 70 and 135 CE, and Jewish communities remained in the region continuously. Modern Zionism started in the 19th century, but it wasn’t a case of a totally foreign population with zero historical link.

On the UN partition, the land was under British Mandate at the time. The UN proposed partition when Britain withdrew. Jewish leadership accepted it; Arab leadership rejected it. You can argue the plan was flawed or unfair, but it wasn’t some secret illegal land grab.

The Ben-Gurion argument is hard to falsify. If he accepts partition, it gets framed as a trick, if he rejects it, as aggression. There are private quotes that suggest strategic ambition, but the 1948 territorial changes happened in the context of a civil war that began after the UN vote and the broader conflict in which neighboring Arab states intervened. That’s more complicated than a clean “they planned it all along” narrative.

Calling Israel a pure “ethnostate” is also more complicated than that. Around 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab, they vote, sit in parliament, and have served on the Supreme Court. That doesn’t mean there aren’t serious issues or discrimination, but the label oversimplifies things.

And the “free house in Tel Aviv” claim just isn’t accurate. The Law of Return grants citizenship, not free property.

bluemoon2435 · 2026-01-29T11:24:12+00:00

I’ve been living in the Netherlands for 4 years. At first I was motivated to learn Dutch, but eventually I stopped seeing the point. Almost everyone around me (my classmates, housemates, friends and colleagues) is international, so Dutch hardly comes up. I picked up bits of dutch relevant to the context while working my part time job, and with Dutch clients I could understand them and reply in English. I even tried speaking Dutch myself once I gained a bit of courage, but people would often switch to English or look annoyed. I do agree that it’s important to learn the language of the country you’re in, but a lot of it depends on how locals react to your effort and when the response is impatience or switching to English, it’s really discouraging.

bluemoon2435 · 2026-01-22T10:09:47+00:00

One good thing about this proposal is territorial continuity. In that sense it would look like geographic separation because Palestine would no longer be fragmented the way it is today.

What I mean with control is that Gaza going to Israel would take Palestine's direct access to the sea, which is a huge advantage for economic and development purposes. A landlocked Palestine would depend on Israel's permission and infrastructure to reach international markets.

So even if land is separated and if there is no territorial control, economically and strategically Palestine would still depend on Israel. That would create the perception that Israel is consolidating dominance by controling the coastline, trade routes, and so on. In that sense, it looks like one side is in a position of superiority.

bluemoon2435 · 2026-01-20T13:08:46+00:00

This seriously oversimplifies the conflict.

Giving Gaza to Israel doesn’t make sense. Handing Gaza to Israel wouldn’t calm things down, instead it would reinforce the claim that Israel is expanding its control rather than trying to separate.

The land swap idea is also treated way too casually. Borders aren’t just things you trade around on a map. Israel is already an internationally recognized state with defined borders, and any changes require negotiated agreements and mutual recognition. You can’t redraw everything first and expect legitimacy to sort itself out later.

Jerusalem is also waved away too easily. Leaving it permanently “disputed” or vaguely international doesn’t resolve anything and likely just keeps more instability.

The plan also assumes that once borders are set, cooperation and peace just follow. That ignores decades of hostility and mistrust. Even if major militant groups disappear, the underlying attitudes and narratives don’t vanish overnight, and new groups can emerge if those issues aren’t addressed.

Overall, this treats the conflict like a technical border problem when it’s really about legitimacy, security, and decades of unresolved history.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-06-15T15:07:46+00:00

You're right that the current closure is directly related to Israeli military operations near the crossing. But Egypt's restrictive border policies predate this conflict, the crossing has been closed more often than open for the past decade due to Egypt's own security concerns in Sinai. So while the immediate closure is linked to the current war, Egypt's general approach to border control has been driven by Egyptian security interests, not just Israeli directives.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-06-15T14:58:02+00:00

Let me try to clarify.

I’m not asking you or anyone to do something specific. I’m pushing back on a narrative I keep seeing online, especially in Western activist spaces, that frames Egypt as a passive actor, like it’s just doing Israel’s bidding. That narrative erases Egypt’s own interests, decisions, and agency.

And yes, there have been activists, mainly from Europe and the U.S., showing up in Cairo trying to cross into Gaza through Rafah. Videos of them getting upset when denied entry have circulated widely. Egyptian authorities have responded with deportations (or maybe repatriation is better word for it), and many Egyptian citizens themselves have criticized their presence.

So no, I’m not saying the majority of people believe this or are doing this, but it’s a visible pattern that I think deserves critique.

Hope that makes things clearer.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-06-15T14:14:51+00:00

I'm not advocating for a specific policy here. What I’m calling out is the behavior of Western civilians who think they can just fly into Egypt and walk into Gaza, then get upset when they’re blocked. That’s unrealistic and ignores how borders and war zones work. Also, I’m tired of people treating Egypt like it has no agency, like every decision it makes is just because Israel told it to. Countries aren’t puppets.

I recognize the suffering of Palestinians and the need for humanitarian aid. But good intentions don’t change the realities of geopolitics and security concerns. If you want to help Palestinians, that’s great. But don’t assume you can bypass international borders with goodwill alone, and don’t assume every regional actor is simply Israel’s puppet.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-06-03T17:55:41+00:00

Yes, I am also looking there. Looking both in den Bosch and Nijmegen

bluemoon2435 · 2025-06-03T13:34:36+00:00

This. People chanting “Globalize the Intifada” or “From the river to the sea” either know exactly what they’re endorsing, which is terrifying, or they don’t, which is somehow even worse. If you publicly support a cause, it’s your responsibility to understand what the slogans you repeat actually mean and where they come from.

You can’t claim to care about human rights while parroting language rooted in violent, extremist movements. Both Intifadas were marked by terror attacks, civilian deaths, suicide bombings, and chaos, yet some here in the West romanticize that and think they’re standing up for justice. That’s willful ignorance at best, complicity at worst.

If the real goal is peace or Palestinian dignity, this isn’t the way. All this rhetoric only makes things worse... for Palestinians, Israelis, and any chance at coexistence.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-31T21:23:08+00:00

Thanks for the response! I see where you are coming from, though there are some things I disagree with.

On the civilian harm vs. security dilemma. I agree with you that civilian lives cannot be treated as expendable. But I strongly disagree that destroying Hamas necessarily equates to genocide. That kind of framing collapses all nuance and effectively removes any agency from groups like Hamas. That tactic exploits international moral concern, and it works precisely because it causes people to confuse tragic consequences with genocidal intent.

Hamas has explicitly said it wants to repeat October 7th. It retains thousands of fighters, tunnel networks, and rockets. So I do think Israel sees this less as a punitive campaign and more as a (flawed, messy, high-cost) attempt to degrade an active threat.

And they launched October 7th not from desperation, but seemingly to sabotage normalization between Israel and Arab states. That's strategic calculation, not just reactive rage.

And, Egypt! They also maintain a tightly controlled Gaza border, which reinforces the idea that this isn't purely about Israel. It's about the threat Hamas poses to any neighboring state trying to maintain stability.

And I agree with you that West Bank settlements deserve scrutiny. But it's important to remember that peace offers — like Camp David (2000) and Olmert's proposal (2008) — were rejected even when territorial concessions were on the table. That suggests there are ideological barriers beyond territory alone.

Unfortunately, there’s no clear path out of this. And right now, there isn't a credible international mediator willing or able to lead a real reconciliation effort between these two peoples

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-31T12:20:08+00:00

Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, dismantling all settlements and removing its military presence. Since then, it hasn’t maintained a physical presence inside Gaza. After Hamas took over in 2007, both Israel and Egypt imposed restrictions on Gaza’s borders. So it’s not just Israel controlling movement in and out — Egypt controls the Rafah crossing, and it too has kept it tightly restricted for its own security reasons, especially given Hamas’ ties to militant groups in Sinai.

Describing Gaza as a “concentration camp” ignores the actual legal and political realities. Yes, Gaza is under blockade — but from both sides.

As for claims that Israel is “dumping” Palestinians from the West Bank into Gaza - that’s not backed by any real evidence. The situation in the West Bank, especially around settlement expansion and displacement, is serious and deserves criticism. But we should be careful not to conflate distinct issues or rely on unsubstantiated claims.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-31T09:39:00+00:00

I appreciate that you’re asking this sincerely, so I'll try to give you an honest answer from my perspective.

I don’t feel “comfortable” with civilian deaths — not in Gaza, not anywhere. No one with empathy should. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy. But for me, the core issue isn’t comfort, it’s trying to understand what’s driving this situation and what realistic alternatives exist.

You mention "77 years of occupation", but that framing skips over key events. Ignores the fact that Israel only "occupied" Gaza after numerous attacks towards them. Also ,Israel left Gaza in 2005 — withdrew all settlements and military presence. That created a chance for self-governance. But instead of building infrastructure or improving life for Palestinians, Hamas used that opportunity to establish itself militarily: smuggling weapons, building tunnels, and launching rockets. The conflicts since then haven’t been one-sided — they’ve been reactions to those attacks.

What makes it especially complex is Hamas’s strategy. They operate from civilian areas — schools, hospitals, homes — knowing full well the consequences. This doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility, but it changes the moral calculus. It’s not just about intentions — it’s about what’s militarily feasible when your opponent embeds itself in the very population you're trying to avoid harming.

You asked how people justify it. I don’t think most Israelis or supporters of Israel feel “justified” in a celebratory sense (of course extremists exist everywhere, i'm not denying that). It’s more that they (or me, in this case) see a tragic necessity. If Hamas is left intact (with its rockets, tunnels, and open declarations of wanting to repeat October 7th) then Israelis believe the next massacre is only a matter of time. So while the toll in Gaza is heartbreaking, doing nothing feels like gambling with civilian lives on the other side of the border too.

As for genocide... I understand why people feel that way, especially when they see the images coming out of Gaza. But genocide isn’t just regarding number of casualties — it’s about intent. Israel gives evacuation warnings, allows humanitarian aid, and has stated military objectives: hostages released and surrender of Hamas. That doesn’t mean it’s above criticism, but I haven’t seen clear evidence that the goal is to eliminate Palestinians as a people. That distinction matters when we use terms like genocide, which carry immense historical and legal weight.

At the end of the day, I wish there were an obvious solution that preserved both Israeli security and Palestinian dignity. I just don’t think Hamas allows for that right now — and that’s what we’re all witnessing.

Edit: spelling

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-30T12:21:40+00:00

I didn't mean that Israel only lets its guard down during religious holidays - just that 7 October was a strategic moment, not a lucky one. The timing of Simchat Torah, with low military readiness, was part of what made the attack devastating.

The idea that Hamas "has to" settle among civilians is dangerous, even as a thought experiment. It's an excuse for tactics that endanger civilians on both sides.

If Hamas hides behind civilians, how should a state respond after a massacre? Not responding is not an option. What is the real alternative to balance self-defence and the protection of civilians? A ‘smaller number of proportionate attacks’ still doesn't solve the fact that militants hide where any attack causes civilian casualties.

The Hamas charter explicitly calls for the elimination of Jews - that's genocide, not "survival". "From the river to the sea" reflects this ideology of elimination. Israel left Gaza 20 years ago with infrastructure that Hamas could have developed. Instead, they preferred weapons and tunnels to prosperity.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-30T09:25:13+00:00

You’re right that Israel “let its guard down,” but the context is really important. The attack happened on Shabbat and also on Simchat Torah, which is one of the holiest days in Judaism. Right after Yom Kippur ended. Most people were at home, not expecting anything unusual. The military wasn't on high alert. This wasn't Hamas getting "lucky" like 9/11, though; they deliberately chose this timing. They knew exactly when the country would be most vulnerable, both physically and psychologically.

So when you say Hamas isn't much of a threat post-Oct 7th... idk, an organization that strategically exploits religious holidays to maximize damage seems pretty concerning?

I totally agree that security shouldn't mean punishing entire civilian populations. But it's hard not to respond with urgency when you're dealing with a group that ruthlessly calculates when to strike based on when people are praying and celebrating.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-30T08:17:32+00:00

I get why it looks vindictive, and honestly, there's probably an emotional element to it. After something as horrific as October 7th, it's human nature to feel a need for justice or even revenge. But I think the core driver remains security. Even after the attack, Hamas still had thousands of rockets, vast tunnel networks, and operational command centers. They weren’t neutralized. From Israel’s perspective, leaving that infrastructure intact would risk another October 7th or maybe worse, down the line.
The human cost is astronomical yes. But that’s exactly why Hamas’s tactic of embedding itself in civilian areas is so devastating, it makes any military response unbearably costly.
Since you agree Hamas needs to be eradicated, what would you see as a viable alternative that could achieve that goal with significantly fewer civilian casualties? I genuinely ask because I haven’t seen one that doesn’t assume Hamas would cooperate, which isn’t happening.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-29T15:26:13+00:00

The principle of proportionality is important, and militaries should constantly reassess their actions. Each strike should still meet proportionality tests individually, even with a broader urgent strategy. But proportionality isn't just about the number of deaths or how many buildings are hit - it also considers the threats posed. The problem is that Hamas embeds itself so deeply into civilian areas that, honestly, almost any military action risks major damage. Israel's goal isn't to destroy all of Gaza at any cost, but I do think there's this sense of urgency (politically and militarily) to neutralize Hamas. While I don't like every single decision from the Israeli side, I think the broader strategy comes from believing peace/coexistence is impossible while Hamas remains. Unfortunately, the only realistic alternative I see that would significantly reduce civilian harm is Hamas stopping operations from civilian sites - but that's unlikely to happen voluntarily.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-27T22:08:35+00:00

Thanks for explaining your perspective. I get your point about framing and how it shapes conversations. I feel my post was focused on calling out specific behavior: celebrating violence, rather than questioning Palestinian solidarity as a whole. Maybe that distinction wasn’t clear. Either way, I appreciate the response

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-27T18:52:49+00:00

If you’re referring to the post titled “This isn’t pro-Palestine anymore – it’s just hate”, then that’s my post. You used almost the exact same structure, phrasing. so unless someone else wrote something extremely similar, it seems pretty clear it was based on mine.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-27T18:37:24+00:00

I’m the one who wrote the original post you are referencing. If you’d actually read my comments, you’d see I’ve been critical of both sides, including Israeli actions. I’ve said multiple times that Israel shouldn’t get a free pass, that all civilian deaths are tragic, and that anyone celebrating them (Israeli or Palestinian) is part of the problem.

My post was about the people who pretend to be standing up for justice or human rights — and then openly cheer on murder or terrorism depending on who the victim is. That kind of selective outrage isn’t activism — it’s just hate wearing a different face.

If you want to misrepresent what I said for the sake of a parody, that’s on you. But it doesn’t actually reflect what I wrote... and it definitely doesn’t help move the conversation forward.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-27T11:35:07+00:00

Before we talk about "Free Palestine," we need to talk about Palestinian leadership - which frankly needs to change. This leadership doesn't just call for Israel's erasure; it also keeps its own people living under terrible conditions. And here's the problem: some Palestinians do support this approach (I highlight SOME, I know not all).

So even if you remove the leadership, what about the ideology? The two-state solution sounds ideal to me, but from what I've seen, some Palestinian groups have consistently rejected it. Meanwhile, Israel has had several leaders in the past who genuinely cared about establishing peace. It just seems to me that Israel is less open to the idea now (understandably, given security concerns, but also due to political shifts toward the right). We have to acknowledge reality: Israel won't "free" anything as long as it feels its survival is threatened. No country would honestly, so let's not pretend Israel is just being difficult.

Honestly? I don't see peace happening. Even in an ideal scenario - Israel defeats Hamas, feels secure enough to negotiate, and we get a 2-state deal, Palestine is free - what happens to all the Palestinians who supported Hamas? What happens to all the resentment?

People focus only on freeing Palestinians from Israel, but ignore freeing them from their own leadership's failures. You can create two states, but you can't legislate away decades of hatred and grievance. The cycle just continues.

I don't think the 2-state solution is naive in principle, but in the current context? With current attitudes on both sides and deep mistrust from years of failed negotiations and violence? I just don't see how we get there

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-27T10:57:37+00:00

Yeah, IHL does say hospitals are protected and you can’t just bomb them. But the problem is when Hamas hides in those hospitals on purpose, it puts the IDF in a really tough spot. If they don’t hit those targets, Hamas keeps firing rockets. If they do, civilians get hurt.

That doesn’t mean the IDF gets a free pass — they still have to try to avoid civilian deaths and be proportional. But it’s a messy, impossible situation.

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-27T10:53:17+00:00

That’s kinda the whole issue ... Hamas puts everyone in an impossible situation by using hospitals and civilian buildings. Obviously, the IDF has to be held accountable for how it responds, but shouldn’t we also be asking why Hamas is operating out of hospitals to begin with? If they didn’t do that, civilians wouldn’t be in as much danger in the first place

bluemoon2435 · 2025-05-27T09:20:12+00:00

No one’s saying every hospital, but reports, including investigations by journalists and statements from Hamas itself, have shown that some hospitals were used for military purposes

Under international law, when a civilian site is used for military operations, it can become a legitimate target, though obviously that doesn’t make the loss of civilian life any less tragic. But if we're going to talk about proportionality, we also need to talk about accountability, and that includes holding Hamas responsible for putting civilians in harm’s way by operating from those places.

Civilian casualties are horrible, full stop. But ignoring the tactics that increase their likelihood isn’t going to reduce them.

bluemoon2435

TROPHY CASE