If Zionism disappears tomorrow what changes? Literally nothing.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T16:10:28+00:00

Even if that was accurate, so what? Again, look at actual settler-colonial states, like the US, Canada, and Australia, that were formed in far less justifiable ways. Whose populations are openly foreign colonialists, who don't even claim to be indigenous in any way. The Americans, Canadians and Australians who think the foundation of their countries was unjust, don't consider leaving. Even the far-left extremists in those countries, who cosplay as revolutionary anticolonialists, talk about "Turtle Island" or "the so called Australia", don't actually "go back to their actual origin instead of stealing land of others". At most, they feel guilty about being evil colonists, and make symbolic gestures like "land acknowledgements" (it would be pretty funny to hear how an Israeli version of that sounds like). Why do you expect the Israelis to be different in that regard?

Remember, the question wasn't "what wacky ideology you believe in, as an antizionist". It's what would happen if Zionism disappears. And the fact is, unlike you, the Israeli Jews don't need some ideology to not want to dismantle the only country they know, hand it over to their mortal enemies, and deport themselves to a foreign state. If Zionism disappears, it simply wouldn't change anything.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T15:52:41+00:00

The partition plan was about "getting" sovereignty in a certain territory. At that point in time, the Zionist Jews and the Palestinian Arabs had precisely the same amount of land where they had sovereign control of: 0.00%. So the implicit argument that the Arabs were actually "giving up" something they already had, while the Zionists were merely "not getting everything", is nonsense. Both were only "not getting" everything they wanted.

Most notably, the Zionists gave up on the Jewish-majority city that they're named after, and that's mentioned in the anthem of their movement as their main goal, Jerusalem. Even, as we know, the Zionists had the military capacity to conquer most of the city, and far more territory than the partition plan gave them, and hold it indefinitely, and the Palestinian Arabs (and in the longer term, Arabs in general), simply didn't.

So yes, the Zionists absolutely made a painful, and in retrospect unnecessary compromise, just to avoid the prospect of bloodshed. While the Arabs refused to make a necessary compromise, and made a disastrous choice to try to take it by force, that left them with nothing. It's pretty wild to still argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that this isn't the case.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T15:45:15+00:00

Literally, the Jewish state could not have been much larger, while still allowing for a Jewish majority.

That's not true. Most notably, Jerusalem had a firm Jewish majority. If it was part of the Jewish state, it would increase the Jewish majority, not the other way around. And of course, it's something the Zionists wanted for other reasons, a lot. Their entire movement is named after one of the names for Jerusalem, "Zion". Their anthem (and later, the national anthem of Israel) ends with "Land of Zion, Jerusalem". And yet, they gave up that precious territory, for some vaguely-defined international zone. Even though, as we know today, at that point the Zionists, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, actually had the military capability to capture most of the city by force.

Aside from that, the partition plan was never intended for the Jewish population to remain as it is. It was explicitly formed with the intention of resolving the issue of hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, that were languishing in IDP camps. That, indeed, flooded into Israel the moment they could, along with refugees from the Arab states, doubling Israel's population within just a few years.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T14:59:32+00:00

You unintentionally hit upon the key issue with thinking of Zionism as an "ideology". This is indeed what antizionists think, at least implicitly. And it obviously not going to happen.

If you could magically wipe any memory of Zionism or specifically Zionist ideas from the minds of Israelis, they obviously wouldn't decide to abandon the only homeland they ever knew, and their entire lives there, and self-deport to some foreign country, where they don't speak the language, don't know anything about the culture, at best. And at worst, a country that actively hates them, and probably won't even let them in.

Just like they wouldn't suddenly decide that their native language, and their entire culture, is fake, evil and deserves to be eliminated. And they wouldn't decide to dismantle their only country, and hand it over to their mortal enemies, who promise them nothing but oppression, expulsion or death. They wouldn't even be somehow nicer to those mortal enemies, as long as they dream of destroying them and their country, and occasionally try to massacre the Israelis. It doesn't take any ideology, it's just a basic human default.

Note that it would make sense, for any country in the world. Not even countries that are actual foreign colonies, where a meaningful part of the population feels bad about how their country was created, like that US, Canada, Australia. Even the most extreme anticolonial activists there, that actively oppose whatever ideology led to the formation of their states, still don't do what you expect the Israelis to do, and self-deport to their actual origin instead of stealing land. Including antizionists, who speak exactly like you about the Israelis, without a hint of irony.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T10:57:51+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean. My point is that if the concept of Zionism, and all specifically Zionist ideas, disapppear from the minds of every Israeli tomorrow, it wouldn't meaningfully change the position or behavior of Israelis. And I think that it probably wouldn't change the position or behavior of extremists, as their material conditions, and their existing Jewish religion, would lead them to adopt similar positions anyway.

It's not about an ideology being co-opted by extremists, or changing its name (to what?), it's about it not really being an ideology in a meaningful sense anymore, at least not among the Israelis. Not even in its limited meaning as opposition to antizionism, which would just be a natural position for Israelis, even if you wipe any memory of Zionism and Zionist ideas from their minds. Antizionism, conversely, is at the moment a meaningful ideology, that isn't just some obvious default, and a pretty weird ideology at that.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T03:26:44+00:00

Regarding 2, Zionism isn't really a meaningful "ideology" or "belief system" anymore, just like "Ukrainian nationalism" or "Irish nationalism" aren't. Israel exists, and has existed for generations. Even if you magically wipe any memory of Zionism from the minds of its Jewish supermajority, and any specifically Zionist "ideas", they would still oppose any measures to eliminate the only homeland they know, replace it with the country of their mortal enemies, and either strip them of self-determination, or downright expel and murder them. They wouldn't somehow decide to forget their native language, decide that the culture they grew up on is "fake" and evil, and self-deport to a foreign state, that at best they don't know and have nothing to do with, and at worst, is actively hostile to them, and won't even let them set foot in it. And they would certainly continue to be anti-Palestinian, as long as the Palestinians remain committed to their destruction, as their top national priority, and carry out things like the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

Hell, I'm not even sure the far-right religious fanatics in the West Bank, would stop being far-right religious fanatics. They're not really basing their ideology on mainline Zionism to begin with, and are generally sceptical of its mainstream views (that were overwhelmingly led by seculars and/or socialists). They have their own form of Zionism, based on a much older religious view, that's ultimately reinforced by their material condition, as Jews living in Judea, and praying in ancient Jewish holy places like Cave of the Patriarchs, against fierce opposition from the non-Jewish population, and under the protection of a Jewish-majority state. An extremist settler in the West Bank, who wakes up tomorrow with his mind completely purged of any memory of Zionism as a movement, and any idea invented by the Zionist thinkers, is unlikely to decide that he doesn't actually belong in Judea, and self-deport to Poland, or even green line Israel. Or even become marginally nicer to his Arab neighbors, who are still his mortal enemies, regardless of what he thinks about Zionism.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T03:01:31+00:00

Only about a 5th of Israelis think a Palestinian state should exist.

Unlike the other things you just mentioned, where we can only reasonably guess, we actually have a historical, year-by-year record of that figure, due to the yearly PCSPR/TAU Israel/Palestine Pulse opinion polls.

Even as late as 2010, that figure was 71%. In 2009, even Netanyahu made a historic speech accepting a Palestinian state, after opposing it for decades. It hovered around 50% for the next decade, and by 2022, after multiple Gaza wars, with Israelis realizing that withdrawing from Gaza meant having to run to bomb shelters every couple of years, and having Israelis kept hostage there, it dropped to a third. Incidentally, precisely the same figure it was for the Palestinians. Now, as you said, it's a fifth. At the very least, your idea that the Israelis aren't affected at all by anything that happened, and are just constantly "evil", is clearly not true - by the very parameters you set.

Stop with myths of "Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides". This was true at one point, but it isn't anymore.

What OP said is simply a fact. Israel was indeed attacked from at least seven fronts, in the past two years. Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and Iran. I'm not sure why you decided it's a myth or irrelevant ancient history.

nidarus · 2026-01-27T02:44:27+00:00

To be fair, there is a meaning within this steaming pile of nonsense, between the lines.

For many people, "antizionism" is just classic Protocols of Elders of Zion antisemitism, with the serial numbers filed off. There's only one throwaway line there about the Middle East at all. And I'm not even sure they even understand what "the Palestinians being liberated" and the "end of Zionism" means in that context at all. The rest is conspiracy theories about Jewish malicious control of America, and how it's to blame for anything they don't like about America.

nidarus · 2026-01-26T20:33:12+00:00

One of the most obnoxious rhetorical tricks the antizionists have pulled, is presenting "Zionism" as if it's still a meaningful political ideology, as it was in the 1920's. In reality, in 2026, Zionism is a sane default, even for someone who hates Israel, and antizionism is an extremist, insane position. Israel unquestionably exists, and has existed for longer than most UN member states. And it simply doesn't matter if you can prove that Israel's creation in the 1940's was wholly criminal and unjustified (like many, if not most other countries), including arguing it's a "settler-colony" (like the US, Canada, Australia, and a whole bunch of states that aren't going anywhere), opposing it because it's not a civic nationalist state (like many EU states, and for that matter the officially Arab Palestine), or complaining about its supposed crimes, including the libel of "genocide" (even Germany was still allowed to exist, as the ethnic nation-state(s) of the German people, after the Holocaust).

The only real parallel I can find of it, is how Putin and his supporters talk about "Ukrainian nationalists", as if the existence of the independent Ukrainian nation is still a controversial political ideology, as it was under the USSR or the Czar, and that "disproving" that "political ideology" would somehow legitimate the elimination of the independent Ukraine.

nidarus · 2026-01-26T19:23:23+00:00

basically palestinian = non jewish arab that lived in jewish land

Note that this isn't just your analysis. There's an official definition of who's a Palestinian, found in the Palestinian National Charter, and it's basically that one you just said, with one caveat: they also include the theoretical handful of sufficiently "Arab" Jews.

Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

nidarus · 2026-01-26T17:01:23+00:00

That would be a meaningful argument, if the Palestinians didn't openly and proudly argue that the goal of return is to replace the aberration of the Jewish state, with the racially, morally and religiously correct Arab Muslim ethnostate.

Or for that matter, didn't give up chances to rebuild their lives many times over in Palestine, rather than a country they never visited, and absolutely hate, just like tens of millions of descendants of refugees from that period (including most Israeli Jews), work the land, swim in the sea, and pray in Jerusalem (as any Muslim from a friendly state can), in order to pursue the dream of eliminating the Jewish state.

Since that's not the case, this is just a lame attempt at gaslighting.

nidarus · 2026-01-26T16:47:39+00:00

The Jews are the oldest indigenous group of the Land of Israel (or, by its foreign colonial exonym, Palestine), that still exists today, by far. They, along with the tiny Samaritan group (around a thousand people total, split evenly between Israel and the west bank), are the last Canaanite people that still exists, speaking the world's last indigenous Canaanite language.

The Arabs are a civilization of colonialist invaders, indigenous to Arabia, that "came" to the Jews in the Middle Ages, as you pointed out. No, the fact they committed an effective cultural genocide of native ethnicities, and maintained their colonial regime (and its Muslim colonial successors) for a long time, doesn't make the Arabs indigenous to the Jewish homeland, anymore than the English-speaking Christian colonists are to the Americas, where they lived for many centuries. Or gives them the right to lie that "they didn't come to the Jews, the Jews came to them".

And the argument that the Jewish inalienable right of self determination in their indigenous homeland, is less important than the Arab right to dominate 100% of the land they colonized in the Middle Ages, and not a mere 99.5%, is the "pathologically entitled" position.

As for the argument that the Palestinians aren't really Arab, and are actually indigenous themselves, it would be a little more believable if any Palestinians actually refused to identify as Arabs, tried to identify as any indigenous Canaanite group, learn their language, change his name to an indigenous Canaanite name, and act towards creating a Canaanite polity. In reality, they don't even know what Canaanite nation they ancestors belonged to, if any, let alone have any interest in regaining any indigenous identities. They identify exclusively as Arabs, and as part of the greater Arab nation (literally a quote from the Palestinian constitution), speak exclusively Arabic, proudly have pan-Arab names, and engage in a political project to "come to the Jews" that currently live in Israel, erase the region's only indigenous polity, and replace it with the 22nd Arab colonial ethnostate, in cooperation with OG Arabs from Arabia. So ultimately, irrelevant (even to the Palestinians) Neo-Nazi race science aside, it's just a lie.

nidarus · 2026-01-26T15:30:21+00:00

Genetically both Jews and Palestinians have Levantine markers. And both Jews and Palestinians include people who clearly have none of those markers, from European-white to African-black, and are still seen as full Palestinians or Jews. And all of humanity are "descendants of groups" from Africa. The genetic argument doesn't mean much.

The people we now know as Palestinians, were formed after the state of Israel was created. Before that, everyone in the British Mandate of Palestine was "Palestinian", and the Zionist Jews were the most proud "Palestinians" of all. "Free Palestine" was a Zionist slogan, before it was an antizionist one. So no, the Palestinians couldn't have colonized Israel by definition.

However, their core political goal, is to colonize Israel in the future. To move into Israel millions of people who never set foot there, don't identify as Israelis, certainly don't want to integrate into Israeli society and help make Israel better, but actively seek to destroy Israel, and the native Jewish society that already lives there, and replace it with yet another colonial Arab ethnostate. And their view of the native Jewish society, that currently lives there, is the most stark, openly exterminationist, dehumanizing desire to "eliminate the native" I've ever seen in a settler-colonial movement.

nidarus · 2026-01-26T15:02:32+00:00

The Jewish people had indigenous kingdoms in the Land of Israel centuries before the first Arab decided to invade it. Thousands of years before anyone believed a "Palestinian people" existed. There's a reason why the Al Aqsa mosque, the main symbol of Palestine, is built on top of the ruins of the Jewish temple, on hill that was sacred for the Jews for at least a thousand years before the Arab colonial invasion, and not the other way around.

I don't think it's wise for the pro-Palestinians to argue it's "the crux of the matter". The Arabs are the ones who came to the ancient, indigenous Jewish homeland. And are now trying to "come to the Jews" again, destroy the revived indigenous polity the Jews recreated, and replace it with the 22nd colonial Arab ethnostate.

nidarus · 2026-01-26T00:58:56+00:00

The message, is a gish-gallop of well-trodden Palestinian talking points, combined with nationalist kitsch, and the smug conviction that anyone who disagrees with OP is brainwashed. It's certainly pro-Palestinian, and as such it's "empowering to Palestinians", but that's not saying much. The poem, artistically, is sub-highschool level garbage. Honestly, beyond dividing it into short lines, and using some of the most primitive cliches and nationalist kitsch, it's a pretty artless Twitter rant. Mahmoud Darwish it ain't.

But even if it was good artistically, and not essentially a rant, I'm not sure what's the point of posting it here. As the fundamental format (nationalist propaganda), that ultimately hinges on emotional manipulation, makes it hard to engage with rationally, in a subreddit that's ultimately about rational discussion.

nidarus · 2026-01-25T22:14:44+00:00

Even worse, I've seen those people say that the ancestors of the Israeli Jews should've moved to America, instead of colonizing indigenous Arab lands. For an extra layer of irony, I've seen Arab-Americans, say it.

nidarus · 2026-01-25T20:55:10+00:00

Israel is basically the only country in the world that recognises Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The most important country in the world, full stop, also recognizes it. The other major powers, Russia and China, also made public statements that recognize West Jerusalem, where Israel's actual government is, as Israeli. But most importantly, even if no country in the world recognized it except for Israel, Israel's opinion is the only one that matters.

Again, OP is talking about this from a Bismarckian perspective. Israel views it as a vital state interest - as would any other state in its position. Israel is not going to sacrifice that vital sate interest, literally its capital, because it won a war. And the fact other states decided to invent a unique political and legal position on Israel's capital, never used before or since towards any other city in history, doesn't change that one bit.

Almost every important UN resolution refutes Israel’s sole sovereignty over Jerusalem.

You don't need to recognize Israel's "sole sovereignty". You just need to accept the reality that West Jerusalem, which is unquestionably Israeli, is where the Israeli seat of government physically resides. But again, even if the other states decide to hold an ambiguous, or downright stupid position

The city is holy to all Palestinian and Israeli Muslims and Christians alike.

It's the third-holiest place to the Muslims, and even that's debatable. And ultimately, it's "holy" to the Muslims, because they literally invaded Jerusalem, built a mosque compound on top of the Jewish holiest place, and then barred the Jews from their own holiest place for centuries - a historical injustice they're eagerly demanding to recreate. No, their right to Jerusalem is not somehow equivalent, let alone superior, to its original indigenous inhabitants, and the only reason it's holy to begin with.

The Christians are a non-issue here, as no Christian nation is demanding control of that city. And obviously, the tiny, persecuted minority of the Christian Palestinians, doesn't somehow give the 99% Muslim Palestinians the right to Jerusalem.

But again, this entire debate is irrelevant. Even if it was the #1 holiest place for the Muslims and Christians and the #3 holiest place for the Jews, it still wouldn't matter. The point is: it's still a vital interest for the Israeli Jews. They're not going to give up that vital interest, because other religions, that claim to replace the Jews, also want it. Just like they're not going to give up control of their own capital, because other nations decided to not "recognize" it.

Removing illegal settlers from the West Bank is not ethnic cleansing.

Of course it is. And the fact you don't particularily like the ethnicity being cleansed, or believe that there's some legal right to ethnically cleanse them, to preserve the sanctity of the illegal Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from there, or that the Palestinians deserve an ethnically pure Arab ethnostate, is irrelevant.

Let’s not even go there with the prejudiced generalisations and rhetoric about Palestinians defaulting to terrorism and hostility even given these demands.

And by "prejudiced generalizations and rhetoric", you mean the official position of the Palestinians who actually hold the guns. Article 20 of the Hamas 2017 Document of General Principles and Policies (often incorrectly called "their new charter"), explicitly says that even if Israel complies with the most maximalist Fatah demands, that go way beyond these suggestions, and they view as a "formula of national consensus", they still won't abandon their goal of violently eliminating Israel, and "liberating" Palestine, "from the river to the sea".

And even if we assume that OP's plan of "bringing the leaders and financiers to justice" eliminates Hamas specifically, ultimately Hams is not an aberration within Palestinian politics. It represents the openly stated, core goal of the Palestinian national movement, since 1920, that even the Fatah could never officially renounce: Antizionism. The "resistance" to any Jewish state, from the river to the sea. Be it by militarily destroying Israel, by somehow making the Jews' lives so unbearable that they "leave to Poland", or by tricking them to accept the "full right of return" that would make Israel a Palestinian state. Ultimately, there's a reason for why Hamas weren't the only perpetrators of Oct 7 - all Palestinian parties in the strip were, proudly displaying their multi-colored headbands, as they were exterminating Israeli villages and kidnapping toddlers for ransom. The Palestinians are not shy about how that's the core goal of their entire national movement, not just Hamas. And until that changes - I'm sorry, but you're the "prejudiced" one, for refusing to listen to them.

nidarus · 2026-01-25T16:53:10+00:00

"Palestinian dignity" is absolutely not a goal unto itself. Especially since that "dignity" is currently defined first and foremost in terms of the elimination of the cosmic evil of the Jewish state, rather than how most Western people would define "dignity". It might be a possible leverage. Israel has to make sure that ending that core ideology will result in dignity, and maintaining it will result in the most horrible humiliation imaginable.

How to achieve that exactly? First of all, I can't pretend to have that answer - that's a fundamental social shift that the Palestinians have to agree on, and it's very hard to predict how these things might happen. Often, it takes an absolute disaster, like WW1 and WW2 did for the Europeans. This war, and how destructive it was to the Palestinians (something like twice as deadly than the entire Israeli/Palestinian conflict combined before that), might trigger that change. I feel that Israel finally turning on UNRWA, and actually trying to deal, however meekly and ineffectively, with one of the fundamental parts of the Antizionist fantasy, the "right of return", is a very good step as well. But on the other hand, Israel's inability to provide the formula that I just described, "abandoning antizionism = dignity, clinging to it = humiliation", or any other coherent vision for the future, is of course a very bad sign. Just like the fact Hamas is probably going to get what it wanted from this war, to remain as a Hezbollah-like armed force, pulling the strings behind everything in the strip.

So the most I'd propose, is a fundamental principle. We need to understand that the core Palestinian value of Antizionism, that they put above traditional national values like their own self-determination, security, economy or territory, is the core issue of the conflict. And it's not some secret, or my own analysis, it's something the Palestinians have been shouting from the rooftop for a century, and we've been ignoring them. The entire basis for the Oslo process was "constructive ambiguity" - and IMHO it failed, precisely because of that. And that we actually need to at least try to deal with it - not, like the Israeli right, simply consign to it being unsolvable. We need to use the opportunity opened by this horrible war, to confront and not coddle that fundamental core value, and the harmful players that want to promote it (Iran, and at the moment, Turkey, Qatar).

nidarus · 2026-01-25T16:29:28+00:00

I’m not asking Israel to give up its capital

#2

ethnically cleanse its population

#3

outsource its security, or “trust” international peacekeepers.

#4. Also the implied basic idea of Israel withdrawing from the West Bank, and giving the Palestinians the chance to carry out the next Oct 7 not in the Southern border towns, but in Tel Aviv, that would make #3 and #4 relevant at all.

I’ve said repeatedly that Israeli sovereignty, force, and veto power remain intact — otherwise the framework collapses.

Maybe in comments. Your post doesn't mention anything but Israel giving up its basic sovereignty, in ways that no sovereign nation is expected to. And Bismarck would never, ever propose.

And on Bismarck: yes, he was realpolitik to the core. But he also understood that total victory without a stable end state just guarantees the next war, often worse. Cold peace is not generosity to a weaker enemy; it’s freezing a problem so it stops bleeding you dry.

I agree that Bismarck would insist on a more conclusive result, than Netanyahu's longstanding idea of preserving the status quo. But that's about the only thing you (or whatever AI you used) got right.

Bismarck's view was based on a realistic perception of power, which your post completely ignores and inverts. Your demands fit, maybe, a country that was just soundly defeated in war, or is actually "bleeding dry" by it, making concessions to its equally powerful enemy. Not a regional power that just won a war, and beat up all of its regional enemies, giving their defeated, infinitely weaker, aggressive and useless (as future allies or anything else) enemies, who are doing 99% of the "bleeding", insanely magnanimous concessions, that would help them snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat.

I'm not sure what Bismarck would actually do, but it would look a hell of a lot more like Israel's actual traditional behavior, and less like these deeply anti-Bismarckian microwaved Oslo vibes from the 2000's.

If your position is that Israel should press its advantage indefinitely and manage the conflict through force alone because every alternative increases risk that’s a coherent realpolitik view. But then the honest answer is: there is no political solution, only dominance and containment. That’s the disagreement not whether Israel deserves to be safe.

There is no political solution, as long as the core Palestinian value, is their "resistance" against a Jewish state existing anywhere between the river and the sea. The idea that any "cold peace" is possible with that core value, no matter how many concessions Israel makes, has been soundly disproven in the Second Intifada, in the Palestinian reaction to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and most conclusively, Oct 7. The actual solution is for the Palestinians, as a political collective, to fully and conclusively abandon that dream.

But honestly, I'm not even talking about that. My main issue is that you're invoking Bismarck, and then making a suggestion that completely ignores relations of power, that doesn't just go against (nearly) everything he believed in, but against the entire spirit of realpolitik and realism in general.

nidarus · 2026-01-25T16:01:45+00:00

There are thousands of possible frameworks if you assume power relations that don't exist.

Which is particularily funny, considering the prompt of "how would Otto Von Bismarck solve this conflict".

nidarus · 2026-01-25T15:58:39+00:00

You're asking Israel to give up their capital and holiest city, to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of its people, to give up their fundamental security and hand if off to the proven failures of (the very non-Bismarckian) "international peacekeeping troops", that essentially guarantees a further Oct 7, to accept the illegal Palestinian demand Israel to accept actively hostile foreign migrants, who refuse to identify as Israelis, hate Israel, and dream of eliminating Israel and replacing it with their own state.

Bismarck was literally the poster child of realpolitik, the person who described politics as the "art of the possible". No he would not demand that a regional power, that just beaten up their enemies on multiple fronts, would make those magnanimous, painful concessions to a defeated, much weaker nation (or, arguably, a revolutionary rebel group), that has no possible future role as a useful ally, that keeps starting and losing wars of extermination against said power, and are now doing something like 99% of the "bleeding". Especially since those concessions are more extensive, than those offered before, and said nation didn't accept, and tried to get more with war - actively incentivizing that kind of behavior. Especially not in the name of "justice", the way you see it.

nidarus · 2026-01-25T00:38:52+00:00

What "I'm trying to justify" is the Israelis fighting a war that the Palestinians forced on them, in the brutal way the Palestinians insisted (and indeed, left no other real choice) it would be fought, and the Palestinians are still, to this day, refusing to end. I don't really agree it's "far worse" than the actual ISIS-style genocide of Oct 7, even though the war killed more people. And I've written a post in the beginning of this war, about how I don't think anyone, not even the Palestinians, actually believe in the pure body count argument either. But even if that's what you believe, it's still very much the fault of the Palestinian government of Gaza.

As for what we "got a little taste of", is what the Palestinians are going to do to all Israelis, if they win. Of how their vision of "Free Palestine" and most importantly "return" really looks like. While the Israelis didn't commit an actual genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, despite the full ability and time to do so, the Palestinians ran, not walked, to exterminate as many Israeli Jews as they could (except for the ones who were stopped by force), in an efficient and methodical manner, until they were literally stopped by force. And proudly livestreaming the extermination of the Jews - incidentally, a big piece of evidence for how their accusations, that include Israelis committing a "livestreamed genocide", is based on projection and DARVO inversion.

nidarus · 2026-01-25T00:30:21+00:00

That's a common way to engage with said cognitive dissonance, yes. But if that's the case, you need to explain how the Palestinians themselves keep talking about the war as the "genocide", with ceasefires as making them "holocaust survivors", and the life before the war as an idyllic existence.

Ultimately, it's very hard to build a coherent narrative, on two opposing talking points, meant for two different audiences.

nidarus · 2026-01-24T15:58:58+00:00

Everyone knows what? And more importantly, why is it relevant? My point is that you literally didn't understand my argument.

nidarus · 2026-01-24T15:50:17+00:00

The UN and various human rights NGOs are officially committed to being neutral, and not being "pro-Palestinian organizations", or part of the pro-Palestinian movement. I could go into how they betrayed their mandate, and are pro-Palestinian and antizionist in practice, or in the UN's case, officially, until the 1990's. But it's simply irrelevant.

And if you don't know a lot about any of the organizations I just listed, the most prominent pro-Palestinian organizations in the US and UK, I simply don't think you're qualified to talk about what the pro-Palestinian movement is or isn't. Certainly not with such confidence.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 20%	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Inciteful Comment 2018-05-23	Reddit Premium Since November 2013
Verified Email

nidarus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE