I've had a lot of conversations in the past couple of days with multiple people who told me that the only way forward is for Israel to be abolished.

Israel is a nuclear armed country with an advanced military and 10 million citizens who (ostensibly) don't want their country destroyed.

So - how do you see Israel *realistically* being abolished? Like what does that look like and how does it realistically come about?

And before anyone just says "South Africa" - if you think that's a good example then please add specifics about how the situations are the same.

I mean this respectfully - I'm not looking for slogans. It's easy to say "Abolish Israel" - but the devil is in the details.

I'm looking for real and specific answers. Because it seems like what gets forgotten is that the Israelis will have a say in whether or not their country is destroyed.

My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is this sort of "all or nothing" demand is how we got here in the first place. And if the Palestinians decide that the only state they'll accept is on what was once Israel then they're likely to stay in a state of misery.

A conversation I had on DM with a Palestinian (with a very nice guy I just fundamentally happen to disagree with) stated that the *only* path forward was to abolish Israel and form and new Palestinian state with an unlimited right of return.

He said that he believed that a power sharing agreement like Lebanon has (50% Jewish 50% Palestinian for the government) would work fine.

And he said there would be protections for Jews "written into the Constitution". My response was that a piece of paper doesn't protect people. I mean hell look at the US - we have a president who does what he wants because the institutions that are supposed to keep him in check have failed.

But I digress - the point is that I never got a good answer about *how* Israel would actually be dissolved.

The whole discourse around this kind of reminds me of the underpants gnomes from South Park.

Step 1. Underpants
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit

So I'm putting this out to the posters on here who truly believe that Israel needs to be abolished: How is that going to happen?

Disclaimer: I am not Jewish, Israeli, Arab, Druze, Samaritan, Circassian, Christian, or Muslim. I support a two-state solution. I affirm and acknowledge the humanity of everyone. I do not support terrorist groups of any sort. I do not wish for any violence. This post is not meant to cause offense. These are thoughts from someone outside looking in on this conflict which does not have any of his people being affected.

1. The Core Dilemma: "Right of Return" vs. Demographic Survival

A primary demand of pro-Palestinian activists is "The Right Of Return," which states that the people displaced by the 1948 War and their descendants have the right to return to the places they fled or were expelled from.

• The Pro-Palestinian Argument: Grounded in UN Resolution 194 and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, advocates argue that human rights and legal principles are universal and cannot be revoked based on demographic preferences.
• The Israeli / Zionist Perspective: Critics state that this will cause an Arab majority in the land where Jews would become a minority once again. Given two millennia of persecution following the Roman expulsion from Judea—when the territory was renamed Syria Palaestina after the failed Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–136 CE) to try and erase the Jewish connection to the land—Jews view a sovereign majority state as their only guarantee of safety.

2. A Brief Overview of How Jews Fared in the Diaspora

To understand why Jewish people never want to be a minority at the mercy of others again, one must look at the exhaustive history of persecution, pogroms, libels, and expulsions in both Europe and Muslim lands.

Persecution in Majority-Christian Europe

• 1096: Rhineland Massacres
• 1095–1291: The Crusades (launched several anti-Jewish massacres across Europe)
• 1290: Expulsion of Jews from England
• 1306: French Expulsions
• 1391: Spanish Massacre & Forced Conversions
• 1401: Schaffhausen Massacre
• 1420: Lyon Expulsion
• 1421: Vienna Edict (forced conversions, expulsions, and burning at the stake)
• 1492: Spanish Alhambra Decree (Mass Expulsion)
• 1493: Sicily Expulsions
• 1496: Portugal Expulsions
• 1506: Lisbon Massacre
• 1510: Brandenburg Expulsions
• 1510: Naples Expulsions
• 1516: Creation of the first mandatory Jewish Ghetto in Venice
• 1550: Genoa Expulsions
• 1555: Papal Bull (forced Jews into the Roman Ghetto, required identifying clothing, and banned Jews from trades)
• 1563: Polotsk Massacre
• 1639: Łęczyca False Libel
• 1648–1657: Khmelnytsky Pogroms
• 1683: Hungarian Massacres of Jewish Refugees
• 1715: Bavarian Deportations
• 1717: Gibraltar Deportations
• 1727 & 1742: Russian Pogroms & Expulsions
• 1744: Prussian Restriction of Jewish Residency
• 1761: Alsace Executions
• Late 18th Century: Establishment of the Pale of Settlement (restricting where Jews could live in the Russian Empire)
• 1894: The Dreyfus Affair
• Early 20th Century: Widespread Russian Pogroms
• 1935–1937: Polish anti-Jewish violence, including the 1935 Grodno Affair, the 1936 Przytyk Pogrom, and the 1937 Brześć nad Bugiem Pogroms
• 1939–1945: The Holocaust (Nazi genocide destroying two-thirds of European Jewry; Jewish populations still have not recovered their pre-Holocaust counts)
• 1946: Kielce Pogrom in Poland (Holocaust survivors murdered after returning home, driving many to flee to the British Mandate of Palestine)

Persecution and Dhimmi Status in Muslim Lands

Muslim lands subjected Jews and Christians to dhimmi status, where they were at the mercy of rulers and majority populations. Non-Muslims were required to pay a special tax (jizya) for protection and permission to observe their faith—functioning much like protection money paid to a mafia outfit. While Jewish societies did flourish during certain periods under the patronage of specific rulers, these protections were often broken, leading to massacres throughout successive Caliphates, the Ottoman Empire, North Africa, and Persia.

• 627: Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir Expulsions; execution of the Banu Qurayza tribe
• 1033: Fez Pogrom (Morocco)
• 1066: Granada Massacre in Al-Andalus
• 1465: Fez Pogrom
• 1517: Hebron and Safed Attacks under Ottoman Rule
• 1535: Tunis Massacre and Enslavement
• 1656–1662: Persian Forced Conversions and Expulsions
• 1660: Safed and Tiberias Massacres
• 1679–1680: Yemen Mawza Expulsions, Sanaa Massacres, and Starvations
• 1706: Algiers Synagogue Destruction (due to blood libels/accusations of causing plague)
• 1721: Fez Synagogue Arson by Arab creditors
• 1747: Mashhad Massacre (Persia)
• 1756: Hebron and Safed Massacres
• 1776–1777: Basra Massacre
• 1785: Tripoli Pogrom
• 1805: Algiers Pogrom
• 1834: Safed Pogrom (Ottoman authorities did nothing to intervene)
• 1840: Damascus Blood Libel
• 1864: Marrakesh Massacre
• Late 1860s: Tunis and Djerba Attacks
• 1908: Jaffa Pogrom
• 1929: Hebron Massacre under British Mandate (families with roots stretching back to pre-Roman times were murdered or expelled while authorities stood by)
• 1936–1939: Arab Revolt in Palestine
• 1941: The Farhud Pogrom in Baghdad, Iraq
• 1945: Tripoli Pogrom
• 1947: Aleppo Pogrom
• 1955: Istanbul Pogrom

These pogroms occurred long before 1896 (when modern political Zionism took root), dispelling the notion that Jews and Muslims lived in unbroken harmony prior to 1948. Re-establishing the modern State of Israel provided a sanctuary—particularly for Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews fleeing expulsion across the Islamic world in the 1940s and 1950s, who now form the majority of Israel's population (where half the world's Jews reside).

3. The 1947 Partition Plan & Historical Counterarguments

When the UN presented the 1947 Partition Plan, Jewish leadership reluctantly accepted it because having a sovereign state was better than having none. The Arab leadership totally rejected the plan and launched a war.

Perspectives on the Arab Rejection

• The Theological View (Waqf): Rejection may partly stem from the Islamic concept of Waqf, which holds that once land becomes Islamic, it belongs to Islam forever, making non-Muslim sovereignty over it unacceptable.
• The Anti-Colonial / Nationalist Counterargument: Pro-Palestinian advocates argue the rejection was secular and nationalist: in 1947, indigenous Arabs formed two-thirds of the population and owned most of the land, viewing the allocation of over 50% of the territory to a minority group without indigenous consent as an unjust colonial imposition.

Refugee Status: UNRWA vs. UNHCR

• The Entitlement Question: Critics ask why Palestinian refugees are classified by UNRWA such that children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren living worldwide retain refugee status for decades despite never living in those homes.
• The Policy Context: Defenders of UNRWA note that UNHCR (the UN agency covering all other global refugees) also maintains inherited refugee status for descendants in unresolved, multi-generational displaced populations (e.g., Somali, Afghan, or Sahrawi refugees) to preserve family unity until a political settlement is reached.
• The Missing Population Exchange: Pro-Israeli voices emphasize that while ~700,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 War, roughly 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab nations at the same time. Israel absorbed its refugees, whereas many Arab nations refused to integrate Palestinian refugees.

4. Modern Escalations and Civilians in Conflict

The conflict has been further compounded by decades of war: the 1950s Suez Crisis, the 1967 Six-Day War, the War of Attrition, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the First and Second Intifadas, Gaza's 2006 election of Hamas, constant rocket fire, the Gaza Wars of 2014 and 2021, and the ongoing war following October 7, 2023.

• Military Status vs. Civilians: While critics claim that mandatory conscription makes Israeli civilians valid targets, international law is clear: a civilian is anyone not currently serving in the military, regardless of past service. Displacement does not justify terrorism against civilians.
• Extremist Elements & Settlers: At the same time, peace is severely undermined by extremist elements within Israel who deny Palestinian humanity and force families from their homes in the West Bank / Judea & Samaria.

Conclusion

If all UNRWA-registered refugees moved to Israel, it would result in an immediate Arab majority, rendering Jews a minority in their only homeland once again—a risk Israel will never take given two millennia of history. Due to deep-seated bitterness and extremist factions on both sides, an unchecked demographic collapse would likely trigger immediate civil war.

An ideal world requires a sovereign Palestinian state alongside a sovereign Israel. How can this conflict be resolved when one side views the Right of Return as an unalienable human right, while the other views it as demographic destruction? What are your takes on this?

I've put together a quiz that compares your views with political parties and groups in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. I'd be interested to see what people here get, and whether the results make sense to you.

Quiz: https://israelpalestinepartiesquiz.blogspot.com/

It's 42 questions, with your top 10 matches shown as percentages. There are 22 groups, including Likud, Yesh Atid, The Democrats, Otzma Yehudit, Ra'am, Hadash, Balad, Fatah, Hamas, and the PFLP.

My main reason for making it was to get a better sense of the differences between these groups beyond the usual "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" labels. Those labels tell you very little about what someone thinks a government should actually do, or what they'd want everyday life under that government to look like.

The questions cover things like Israel's Jewish national identity, Palestinian statehood, settlements, refugee return, religion in government, women's rights, gay rights, political freedom, and the economy. For example, supporting Israel's continued existence and supporting its Jewish-majority character are separate questions. So are supporting a Palestinian state and supporting an unlimited right for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to move to Israel.

Some issues count more than others. I don't think someone should get a high match with a group they fundamentally disagree with about democracy or national identity just because they happen to agree on healthcare and taxes. The results show where those major disagreements are, and you can open each group's profile to see how its positions were assigned.

There's also a political compass showing economics on one axis and freedom versus coercive control on the other. That takes account of things like political repression and attacks on civilians, along with personal freedoms. A group's stated ideals aren't always a good description of how it behaves. The compass only covers part of what the quiz asks, so your closest dot won't necessarily be your highest overall match.

I'm aiming for something people will actually enjoy taking. Think political infotainment with sources you can check. Some positions are estimates, and some groups have much less information available than others. I've tried to make those gaps visible. I don't think every percentage deserves to be taken literally, but the differences should be broadly recognizable.

There's no sign-up, and the quiz doesn't send your answers to me.

If you try it, post your top few matches. Were they what you expected? If a result seems wrong, I'd especially appreciate knowing which question or assigned party position you think is causing it. A source for a correction would be helpful too.

I’m Palestinian, from a small village near Ramallah in the West Bank. I went through the Palestinian public school system from kindergarten all the way through 12th grade, and across those twelve years, I was never once taught about the Holocaust.
I have plenty of criticisms of the Palestinian curriculum. And by curriculum, I don’t just mean the textbooks—which are only one part of the picture, even if they get almost all the attention from outsiders. I mean the entire educational environment: the lesson plans, teacher training, school culture, administrative pressures, etc.
I think one of its failures is how little we learn about Jewish history, especially the Holocaust. Our textbooks weren’t praising Hitler and we weren’t doing Sieg Heils every morning, but the Holocaust wasn’t mentioned. That said, I do remember teachers making their own contributions over the years, including offhand remarks about how Hitler should have finished the job.
Today, I teach at a private school in Ramallah, where I have more freedom to shape my own lessons. And I do teach the Holocaust.
I firmly believe it’s a subject we need to cover. Generally speaking, Palestinians have very little understanding of Jewish historical trauma or how deeply the Holocaust shaped Israeli society. We don’t understand Israeli fears, the deep-seated emphasis on Jewish self-determination, or what often looks to us like an obsession with security. Missing that context is one of the reasons this conflict feels never-ending.
I know this ignorance works both ways. Plenty of Israelis know nothing about the Nakba. But I can’t change the other side. I can’t change my own side either, but at least I can do my part in my own classroom.
I’ve taught the Holocaust several times now, and I’ve never received a complaint from a parent or an administrator. Even so, it’s still a sensitive topic, and the practical challenges of teaching it here are real.
Education in general is hard in Palestine. All aspects of life are hard here, mostly thanks to the nutcases in power on the other side. On some days, I spend hours stuck at checkpoints just trying to get to work. My morning often hinges on a 19-year-old Israeli soldier deciding whether I’m allowed to keep driving. I get migraines from the long wait, and by the time I step into the building, I’m already exhausted.
And I’m one of the lucky ones. I know public school teachers who have gone months without seeing a full paycheck, effectively working for free. Israel’s withholding of Palestinian tax revenues, combined with the Palestinian Authority’s own endless financial issues, has left our education system in a disastrous state. Poverty is rising, parents are stressed, teachers are burnt out, and kids are missing massive amounts of school. Some public schools are down to operating two or three half-days a week.
When teachers barely have enough time to cover basic reading and math, I can’t exactly suggest to them that what their students really need is a unit on European Jewish history.
Even at my private school—where I actually get paid on time and have the academic freedom to cover these subjects—finding solid, age-appropriate Holocaust materials in Arabic is nearly impossible. I end up translating most of it myself.
The irony is that Yad Vashem, one of the premier Holocaust museums in the world, is theoretically about 25 minutes away from my classroom. But in Palestine, we don’t measure distance in kilometers. We measure it in checkpoints, permits, closed gates, and the unpredictable mood of whichever soldier is on shift. To get there, I’d need an Israeli permit (assuming I could even get one), have to hope my village gate is open, navigate multiple checkpoints, and cross through Qalandiya—and there is nothing I hate more than the Qalandiya crossing. I’d love to take Palestinian students on field trips there someday, but right now, it might as well be a continent away.
Teaching the Holocaust in Palestine can be a lonely job. I don't really have colleagues locally to bounce ideas off of, but here is how I approach it in my classroom:
I teach grades 6–8, which I actually find to be an advantage. My students are young enough that most haven't hardened into stances you see in older teenagers and adults. They're curious, they ask good questions, and they're usually willing to engage with a human story without turning it into a debate about Israel and Palestine.
First, I have to clarify that Jews and Israelis aren't interchangeable terms. In Palestinian Arabic, people frequently use Yahud (Jews) when they actually mean Israelis. It’s a habit many of us grew up with, and it creates massive confusion when you're trying to explain that the people murdered in Auschwitz were European Jews who had never set foot in Palestine.
From there, I start with Jewish life before the Holocaust. I don't want my students' first introduction to European Jews to be photos of starving people behind barbed wire. I want them to see that these were ordinary human beings with families, jobs, schools, hobbies, internal debates, and vibrant communities.
Then I introduce a specific person they can follow—usually Anne Frank. Before we bring the Nazis into the picture, I want my students to know who Anne was: what she liked, what she dreamed of becoming, her personality. Once they know her as a person, we look at how her world started shrinking.
I follow a clear, straightforward historical timeline:
Jewish life before the war → history of antisemitism → the Nazi rise to power → legal discrimination and social exclusion → Kristallnacht → war and occupation → ghettos and deportations → mass shootings → extermination camps.
I want them to see that the Holocaust didn't happen overnight just because Hitler woke up one morning and decided to murder six million people. It was a step-by-step process. A modern, bureaucratic state systematically stripped an entire group of its rights, pushed them out of public life, confiscated their property, restricted their movement, isolated them, and ultimately organized their industrial murder.
I rely heavily on primary sources—diary entries, family photos, letters, children's drawings, and eyewitness testimonies. Once the kids build a personal connection with the people in those stories, we zoom out to look at the massive system that destroyed them.
I also don't try to make the topic palatable by focusing on Muslims who rescued Jews. Those stories are real and worth telling, but my students shouldn't need a character who looks like them in order to feel empathy for Jewish victims.
Finally, I try to avoid discussions of Israel, Zionism, or the Nakba. I want to keep us grounded in the history itself rather than letting the lesson devolve into a political argument—which is always an uphill battle here. When difficult or politically charged questions come up, I acknowledge them directly, answer them as best as I can, and pull us back to the material.
If there are other educators reading this who have taught this topic in sensitive contexts, I’d love to hear your thoughts and suggestions.