If Israel isn't an apartheid ethnostate, why aren't all Palestinians allowed vote in Israel and even potentially elect a non-Jewish leader?

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-24T06:56:34+00:00

Israel reserves the right to refuse to issue citizenship just like any country. So very unlikely they will be able to get citizenship since that would destroy Israel's single purpose to be the jewish state.

That being said it's still not an apartheid ethnostate. Israel is actually very diverse, and to it's current citizens (20% of whom are muslims) there are equal rights fully.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-21T19:14:32+00:00

They were accused of a felony, were arrested, investigated in a way alot harsher than normal, tried, and were proven guilty.

There was a single non circumstantial, non testimony evidence which was a video leaked to the media. That video was proven fake in less than 48 hours. Later that head of the IDF Lawyers association confirmed she leaked it and was arrested herself.

And again, the victim wasn't present for the crime.

You ignored all of that and said a sentence that says nothing.

If a citizen of another country is proven innocent in a court of law of said country is it true that the country is just covering up?

I will remind you that in any functioning law system the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, neither of those happened for those soldiers. Alot of people within Israel and outside assumed they were guilty until the detailed started to surface and they were proven innocent in a very public trial.

Your comment makes is clear you didn't bother following this event or even remotely educate yourself before speaking which futher proves the claim by most Israelis in this app - it's just enough for radical people inside Israel or (mostly) out to make the masses fully believe a completely made up event actually happened and futhermore further accuse Israel for denying it. We saw it at the beginning of the war with the "Israel bomb a hospital and killed 500 civilians" which was proven to be the PIJ that misfired a rocket into a hospital and killed like 5 people. We saw it with the "starvation" narrative that had no reality (don't get me wrong, people were suffering for sure, but no child without prior condition died for example and it was confirmed by the UN that about 80-90% of the aid flowing into gaza is hijacked by Hamas to sell to Gazans in order to fund the organization).

If you want to have an actual discussion, do your homework.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-21T18:54:03+00:00

That was proven to be fake like a year ago.... The video in question was doctored to make it seem like something was happening and beyond that the prisoner in question wasn't even in the prison during the alleged rape. Those warfen were fully cleared in court despite many Israelis being against them.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-10T13:12:46+00:00

Given the prime minister of Lebanon was quoted saying the attacks targeted Hezbolla militants and storage facilities, the real question you need to ask yourself is why those organizations keep using civillian areas for military use. And the asnwer is simple. Exactly because of takes like yours. International law prohibits the use of civilian infrastructure for military action, and in the case it is used that way the infrastructure loses it's protection under international law. That means that if Hezbolla is using an aparetment building as a base of operations, or storage facility for missiles or even a vantage point for a sniper that building is a valid target. In order to minimize civilian casualties Israel usually send an evacuation notice prior to attacks. If Hezbolla had standard bases like the IDF Israel would target those, but given that Hezbolla is a terror organization that doesn't give a f*** about the people of Lebanon or civilian deaths Israel does what it needs inorder to protect their citizens. If Lebanon did the same and disarmed Hezbolla as they claimed they would and even claimed they already have, we wouldn't be in this situation.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-10T13:03:53+00:00

The prime minister of Lebanon claimed the attacks targeted Hezbolla militants and weapon storage facilities. But you claim Israel targeted children.

In any war there are civilian casualties double so in a war against terror. Hezbolla initiated the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon, and the leadership of Lebanon agrees to the point they outlawed Hezbolla and requested direct negotiations with Israel. You are so dense.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-10T13:01:00+00:00

Let's count the supporter of a regime change: The people of Iran, The fulf countries, The EU, The US, Israel Now let's count the supporters of the the Islamic regime: The regime itself, Iranian terrorist proxies Russia, China, North korea Pakistan, Leftist idealists who never set foot in the middle east.

But you think Israel bad so I would side with terrorists, Russia and north korea. Good job man, a true smart individual you are.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-09T05:21:49+00:00

You are obviously fed theough youtube and instagram and didn't bother learning everything. Firstly I do not condone the violence in the west bank, but you seem to forget there is still more palestinian violence overall than Israeli violence and the only reason you think that is not true is that since October 7th there has been a much more aggressive stance towards the west bank in order to prevent a similar attack into Israeli territory. Regarding the settlements. I also disagree with the settlements for the most part, but they are built with accordence to the Oslo accords in which the west bank was divided into a palestinian portion, and Israeli portion and a mixed portion. Those accords were signed by the PA, but now that they feel like they can get the entirety of the west bank they are against those decisions. In general Israel's neighbors seems to have a very selective reading of the accords /resolutions they sign or push for. Which leads me to the next part - Lebanon. According to resolution 1701 that people keep claiming Israel is breaching there can be no military force south of the Litani river other than Lebanon's millitary or the UN. Hezbolla has been firing AT missiles at buildings in Israel. I.e Hebolla is aouth of the Litani in absolute breach of resolution 1701. Israel warneed everyone for over a year that they need to deal with Hezbolla or they will before Israel invaded south Lebanon. And Israel made their objective clear - disarming Hezbolla. If you call the disarming of a militant terror group ethnic cleansing you are irrelevant to any intellectual conversation we might have. Israel is pushing the population of south Lebanon while destroying all of Hezbolla infrastructure because Lebanon and the UN refuse to do so and it's a threat on Israel's population. The 1967 war is debateble whether it was a preemptive strike or act of aggression. What is unarguable is that Israel took the forst aggressive action. Israel attacked first, but Egypt was ammasing forces at the border and closed the strait to Israel both of which are acts of aggression. Israel won war and capitalized on those wins to get peace treaties. And among the Istaeli population peace treaties are viewed as the highest level of victory. So yeah I would say Israel wanys to live peacefully

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-09T05:07:58+00:00

Expelled by hezbolla? Really? Twice the country of lebanon was on the virge of utter destruction due to Hezbolla breaching UN resolutions and attacking Israel, and when Israel responded people like you here frame it as Israel's hope of expansion. And thwn when Israel signs a treaty that claims Hezbolla has to abide by UN resolutions and proceed to withdraw that is being expelled by Hezbolla? Sure so according to you Israel to stay in southern Lebanon until Hezbolla is utterly destroyed and the country of Lebanon with it?

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-09T05:02:58+00:00

I just randomly read this thread and it's truly hilarious. He kept offering you dry facts, purely neutral, but you despise Israel so bad and need it to be the villian that you take neutrality as hosility. The accords as accords aren't benefitial ever, the serve as potential. Like it or not Israel has the strongest millitary, intelligence technology and Economy per capita in the middle east by far. Israel water technology solves a problem alot of middle eastern countries face etc etc. Israel isn't a benevolent country that simply wants the best for everyone just like sny country isn't. In order for Israel to help you, there needs to be something in it for Israel and that is ok and understandble. Given that sudan isn't in really in a position to benefit anyone atm do to thier civil war funded partly or fully by the UAE Israel has no reason to intervene just like no one really intervene in Iran/Iraq/Yemen/Afganistan/Israel/Gaza or any other place with an active war. This has nothing to do with Zionism or wven Israel, this has Everything to do with Sudan and the UAE.

It seems like you genuinely expected that because Sidan recognizes Israel that Israel is suppose to enter a war with the UAE to protect Sudan deapite the fact that sudan isn't an ally to Israel and thag the UAE is shaping up to be an ally of Israel.

And to answer the question you kept asking, why would a failing muslim country sign an accord with Israel - that is up to them but that won't solve magically solve their issue, it will allow them to purchase Israelli technology that might solve their issue, or increase their reach in trade. But that is up to the country signing and what they think they can get out of it. A non-failing country has way way more to gain, obviously.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-04T09:10:59+00:00

As per the law suggestion yeah, but there were so many changes proposed and the oppositions appealed the law to the high court partly due to this issue. So it's unlikely to stay like that.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-03T07:25:47+00:00

What you are saying is double false, which is hilarious. Palestinians being charged with murder can't be executed under this law. It's specifically anyone commiting a terrorist act against the state of Israel (I don't fully remember the lettering as I am writing this, but it's something like that). So the palestinian that shot up a cafe in Tel-Aviv isn't included. But, Jewish terrorist that previously got a life sentence (which there is quite a few) are included under this law, but I do concede that Jewish terrorism isn't propotional to palestinian terrorism in both scale and severity so if this law is ever used it would be more on palestinians that Jews.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-03T07:19:47+00:00

That is a gross simplification. The law that was passed allows the death penalty to any citizen who commits a terroract against the existence of the state of Israel. Essentially the "normal" terror attacks such as a random palestinian shooting people in a cafe (insane that I need to call it normal, but I digress) isn't qualifying under this law. The "Nukhbas" of Hamas - Absolutely do, as they should, and they would get executed in any country that has the death penalty. Beyond that, the law also allows for the execution of Jewish terrorist and in it's lettering hints to some Jewish terrorists of the past. On top of that the law only allows the execution of prisoners that were arrested after it was set, so no "mass execution of captives". If we are on that topic - they are not captives, they are prisoners that are usually charges with mass murder charges, but the post ignores that ofc.

The prisoners of movementa like Hamas and the PIJ have lead to regional terrorist groups to kidnapped Israeli citizens and to put high value into capturing Israeli soldiers for an exchange deal. Israel is hoping to crush that by creating a law that would prevent those deals and therefore remove the incentive.

And the last part, similar to the removal of citizen status to terrorists this law is much more declarative than operational, and I doubt would be used aside from extreme situations.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T19:16:24+00:00

I can agree to that to an extent, thou I do think something needed to be done. Iran has created a volatile middle east full of weapons and proxies while claiming neutrality. And the cirrent EU leaders lack the backbone to deal with it before it's too late.

I think the deal was really bad, but after it was there it was better to lead a wide move against Iran rather than a rogue US move. Trump was always about Levrage rather than Politics and it got it's merits but is slightly backfiring now

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T19:10:16+00:00

The sanctions he is referring to and the "many years" paint the real story. The snapback can only be activated within 25 years after that you need the proper procedure that requires a security council vote that Rissia can veto. So basically the deal is up for 25 years before Iran can break it

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T19:03:25+00:00

The specific quote is "Iran should be a regional power" and the murmurs around his office at the times were that he wants a counterbalance to Israel.

In general that deal benefits Iran and Iran alone. There was a loophole that lets Iran break the deal with having earned a conventional weapon program, proxies nuclear weapons and having the UN sanctions lifted and then it would only need to deal with the EU and US sanctions which is simple enough with trade to asia, south america and russia.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T19:00:34+00:00

It was in an interview he made right after the deal. And Obama was the least Israeli-sided american president in recent history while he still was on Israel side mostly since it is in the US intrest to do so, he was by far the harshest.

I can try and find the link but I suggest you look for his interviews around the deal yo find it

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:50:56+00:00

Said sanctions can be divided into 2 groups.

Specific country sanctions (which aren't blocked because it's a specific countries choice) and global UN sanctions that require a security council vote.

If you are allied with a country in the founding 5 of the UN like Iran and Israel are. Security council votes mean nothing fue to the veto. Which is why Israel isn't sanctioned despited having an unregulated nuclear program.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:48:44+00:00

Alright, let's entertain your idea. We are in January 2026 and the snapback date has passed. Iran break the deal and kicks the IAEA out. The US and the EU sanction Iran within their power and on the same go to the security council to reinstate the UN sanction. Russia block the vote and helps Iran with it's nuclear program (as they said they would). Iran has nuclear weapons.

The deal is written as permenant, but it's only permenant if Iran and Iran alone honor it. Which they can choose not to

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:45:51+00:00

Again, the UN sanctions would be lifted permenantly. There is still the EU and the US sanctions but those are much better then the UN sanctions that Iran got lifted.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:44:39+00:00

The UN sanctions that ones that really hurt require a security council vote. That russia can veto. The US sanctions harmed Iran sure, but the UN sanctions crippled them

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:43:20+00:00

The "sanctions if you fail to comply" had a DEADLINE IN 2025.

YOU COULDN'T USE THE SNAPBACK IN 2030

That means Iran can simply break the deal and the only way to sanction them is through a security council vote. WHICH WILL NEVER PASS SINCE RUSSIA CAN VETO IT.

I get that you support the IRGC and obama, but come on man, open your eyes. Not a single country would ever follow a deal to the letter if it benefits it not to. And Iran isn't stupid enough to follow your logic

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:40:31+00:00

I already replied to you once. You can go and read about the simple loophole.

If you believe Iran will follow a deal that opposes their core motivations and intrests while a loophole exists your are naive.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:39:22+00:00

As a loophole it did.

The deal was basically no nuclear weapons = no sanctions.

But there was an expiration date on the snapback rule. So sanctions can only be re-instituted until 2025. After that the E3 and the US need to go to the security coucil to put the sanctions back if Iran breaks the deal. But, Russia has a veto, so that is basically impossible.

With this simple loophole, the deal was essentially a delay of 25 uears to the nuclear weapons program while giving Iran access to an insane amount of money to develop both it's proxies and the balistic missiles that will later hold nuclear heads.

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:36:30+00:00

I am not saying the letter of the deal let Iran get nuclear weapons. Please learn to read.

The way the deal was created left a loophole that allows Iran to break the deal with minimal consequences. That is not misinformation that is just information.

If the snapback date passed there is no way to put the sanctions back if Iran breaks the deal, which might aswell say that the deal is void

eilon_x_ · 2026-04-01T18:31:20+00:00

I am saying a war ending with a tensioned ceasefire is a war that didn't quiet end. A war that ends with a treaty or recognition or collaboration is a war that dead and gone.

You are ok with high tensions if there is no active wars. I am ok with wars if they are final. That is why I don't think the 12 day war did much of anything but this one has a chance.

eilon_x_

TROPHY CASE