A myth from the Gaza war gets repeated so often it's worth addressing in a post. The claim that IDF snipers routinely targeted children in the Gaza war is not plausible. The available evidence does not support this claim. It spreads because people don't understand the reality of precision shooting and combat.

Several foreign doctors have claimed that wound patterns were evidence of snipers. For instance, they said to reporters that children with gunshot wounds to the head or testicles showed they were targeted by snipers. They also claimed being hit multiple times in the same part of the body was evidence of snipers.

Expertise in medicine is not expertise in shooting or forensic investigation. These doctors are misinterpreting wound patterns. They may be spreading misinformation on purpose or may just not understand how wounds correspond with events on the battlefield.

There's also the issue of ideologically motivated reasoning. Look into who the doctors who said these things are, there's social media for a lot of them online that shows their extremist political biases, which is a factor worth considering.

Being a fascist city-state, Gaza tightly controls information and uses information warfare to spin up the easily suckered and overly gullible. Doctors operating in Gaza are there only as long as Hamas allows them to be.

If IDF snipers were routinely hitting children in the head or testicles, that would mean IDF has the most accurate sniper corps in the history of shooting. Is Annie Oakley even a Jewish name?

Snipers aim for center of mass because hitting heads at combat distances is incredibly difficult. Head shots might be used in very specific situations like if a target in body armor has a bomb vest or something, but you are very likely to miss multiple times.

Snipers operating in warzones know headshots would waste a lot of ammo on missing and would not do that while on missions. That'd be extremely dangerous.

US sniper training sometimes includes an exercise where they paint chickens different colors. A sniper has to hit his or her assigned chicken. Chickens are about the side of an adult head and move erratically like heads. The point of the exercise is to show foolish headshots are. You will miss. There's a reason we hunt birds with shotguns rather than rifles.

In the many, many times we've discussed this issue on this sub, someone will say something about the knee shooting at the right to return protests. IDF snipers engaged people throwing molotov cocktails and bricks by aiming for their lower legs rather than center of mass in order to stop them without killing them. What people don't understand is this was at very short ranges, and that movements of legs are actually quite predictable compared to heads. Watch how people move sometime. I is possible to consistently hit within 2 inches of the knee at 25 yards with a scoped rifle. Not easy, but not a trained sniper with a good rifle and glass could do that more often than not.

Hitting heads- let alone children's heads- in combat at ranges of 100 to 400 yards, yeah, that's a real different situation. Head bob around all over the place. In combat, there are a limited number of sniper rifles with a limited amount of ammo. If you waste ammo, you won't be on the long gun too long. Stunts get dudes killed.

Children with gunshot wounds to the head are much more likely to have been hiding behind cover during a firefight and poked their heads up. Hundreds and thousands of rounds from both IDF and Hamas flying around. And kids stick their heads up.

Multiple rifle rounds to the same body part are far more likely to be from automatic weapons fire. Think about it. If a person were hit by a sniper round, they would fall down faster than a sniper could take another shot. I would suspect wound patterns like this indicate heavy machinegun fire, perhaps at distance, spraying bullets across a horizontal plane at a high rate of fire.

There are aspects of combat people need to be real about. In combat, nobody's checking IDs to make sure everyone is an adult. You see shapes and shadows moving. Total chaos.

In most warzones, children are evacuated or sent to bomb shelters. This is the responsible thing for adults who care about their children to do. Hamas routinely uses minors in combat roles. And famously doesn't allow civilians in the largest bomb shelter in the world they built for themselves.

Left to their own devices, children will run around combat zones to see the action and collect souvenirs. In Japan in WWII, packs of feral kids would chase American planes to see how close they could get and even waved at pilots during firebombing missions. It is up to adults to prevent them from doing that because it's extremely hazardous.

The deaths of children in Gaza by gunshots, while tragic, is not evidence of being targeted by snipers. There is also no evidence which side fired the rounds that hit them. Enemy gets a say in a gunfight too.

Re: the Kristoff piece on Israeli prison rape. 

First: Does someone want to present evidence that there’s a secret cadre of Israelis training multiple dogs to sexually assault men on command? Please share sources if you do. There is one country I know of that definitely used dogs against war prisoners, at least for intimidation. That was the US in the Abu Ghraib prison. Weird how no one holds it against us – good thing we’re not Israel!

Beyond that, Kristoff relies almost completely on anonymous sources, saying they would face retribution if they were identified. 

Having all anonymous sources means that no one can ever prove that Kristoff is wrong. He provides no locations, dates, perpetrators. We might have expected Kristoff to have asked to review some footage of videos from Israeli prisons. But there’s no indication that he did. 

Kristoff spoke to one man, Sami al-Sai, who gave his name. He has said (see NPR and the Times) he was sexually assaulted in Israeli prisons. He filed a petition early in his imprisonment with the Israeli Supreme Court, saying that he was wrongly detained, that the food was bad, and that he was treated badly, but he didn’t mention sexual violence. There doesn’t seem to have been any retaliation and he was released one year ago.

For other sources, Kristof uses former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who said he didn’t know anything about Israeli abuse of Palestinian prisoners. After that disclaimer, he said he “was not surprised by the accounts [Kristof] had heard.” Olmert himself, was formerly convicted and imprisoned on charges of fraud and bribery. Is he a reliable source? 

Another source, cited more than Olmert, is Euro-Med, an organization tied to Hamas. Euro-Med’s leader, Ramy Abdu, called publicly for “a million October 7ths,” and he has repeatedly peddled implausible, and discredited, claims that Israel “harvests organs” of Palestinians. Kristof similarly relies on a United Nations Human Rights Council report, which is itself based on anonymous reporting described as “a single primary source.” 

Since everyone in this thread is an armchair speculator, I’ll add my own opinion. There probably is rape in Israeli prisons against Palestinian prisoners, especially those who participated in the well-documented rapes of October 7 (remember they used their own phones to show bodies of women they multilated and murdered). Every war seems to have soldiers who engage in this disgusting behavior, although sexual abuse is absolutely not Israeli government policy, not even under Netanyahu. These claims should be investigated ethically and thoroughly. This NYT hit piece - they got around fact-checking by putting it on the editorial page - is neither.

 

 

I’ve been debating about posting this but I would love to know what the community thinks. I’m a Jewish Israeli married to a Christian. It’s Shavuot and as not particularly religious people we sought out a winery to go to today that was open. We found one in an Arab Christian town up north and again as my husband being Christian we have been to many of these towns before and have gone to celebrate Christmas so honestly we thought nothing of it. We spoke English the whole time even to ourselves and even when he left the room.

I’ll make a long story short but we had a 1:1 with the owner and I don’t think he knew I was Jewish. I had nothing identifying on me and my husband is very much not Jewish. A few comments started about the Israeli regression/occupation which I was surprised to hear but I am open to hearing people’s stories. The winemaker is making 30,000 bottles per year (as he told us) and said how his family escaped to Israel from Muslim attacks in Christians in Lebanon.

He went on about how Lebanon was “here” at this point (northern israel) but he doesn’t consider himself Palestinian just that this land is actually Lebanon. He also said how he had Jewish friends but “it’s ok because they were born Jewish”. Which made me cackle inside because people like Zohran Mamdani (sp?) think Jews are only a religion not an ethnicity and we’re not actually from Israel. To this winemaker certain. Jews (not Ashkenazi as he gets into) are from Israel but are still difficult. This wine maker said on multiple times about the struggles he has about selling wine into the kosher market (because he’s not kosher) and how he deals mostly abroad. Look I understand being a kosher seller is a PITA but even having a few cases would break into the industry in Israel. This isn’t a Jew problem, this is a Jewish problem since he lives in Israel.

From all of this he said “the Jews” a number of times but in my opinion it wasn’t from a hatred but rather jealousy. He complained about the nice areas Jews lived on the coast but yet he had a mansion in an Arab village with a visitors center and winemaking facility. He made it clear he’s not Palestinian but he’s Lebanese and there were Christians north of Israel but no longer. Yet yes a Christian speaking Arabic in Israel in an Arab village enjoying religious freedom and the kupat holim yet the Jews still were too successful or didn’t work with him. He said certain kibbutzim were “German” but as an Israel I’ve been there and they are Israeli. But if he’s Lebanese and not Israeli or Palestinian then what is he doing here either?

So my question, why live in Israel? Surely if you’re Lebanese, live in Lebanon? We are less than 15 kilometers here in Israel from there. Also he lives in an Arab village which we drove through and saw Hebrew and Arabic, surely there are loads of Muslims in Lebanon, why not live there? He said his original village was actually in Lebanese territory (in today’s terms) but his family moved here. Why live with all the rights and benefits of Israel but then trash it? I liked the man (and the wine) but he seemed jealous. Of Jews success. Of Israeli’s success. Perhaps I’m not articulating it correctly but I left not feeling like I got to know someone different from me but rather they were bitter.

Hey everyone,

I’m a university student from Germany, and I’m reaching out because I’m feeling increasingly isolated in my academic environment.

In almost all of my seminars (I'm studying politics) and even within my closer friend groups, the narrative is overwhelmingly—and often exclusively—pro-Palestinian. Whenever the situation in the Middle East comes up, I regularly find myself being the absolute only person in the room standing up for Israel’s perspective and its right to exist and defend itself.

To be transparent: I am not a fan of Benjamin Netanyahu or his cabinet. I disagree with many of their political decisions. However, I still firmly believe that standing with Israel is crucial.

Right now, any attempt to bring nuance into the classroom is immediately shut down with heavy, emotional slogans and absolute terms like "genocide." It feels like people are completely blind to the security realities Israel faces and the complexity of the region.

I want to move past the emotional shouting matches and bring the conversations back to a factual, rational level.

My question to you guys:

What do you think is the strongest, most effective argument or historical/legal point I can bring up in an academic setting? How do you counter absolute narratives effectively when you are outnumbered in a discussion?

I’m looking for solid, reality-based talking points that can help cut through the echo chamber. Thx in advance for your insights 🙌🏼

Everyone calling for a “free Palestine” and supporting Palestinian control “from the river to the sea” should think seriously about what that would actually mean in practice. A Palestinian state would most likely be governed by the same political structures and leadership that already exist in the Palestinian territories today.

Whether people like it or not, Israel is currently a democracy with stronger protections for minorities, women, and LGBT people than anything that exists under Palestinian governance. In parts of Palestinian law, reduced sentences for so-called “honor” crimes still exist. There are no real anti-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals, and women often inherit less than men under existing legal frameworks. Conditions in Hamas-controlled Gaza are even more restrictive.

So the question is: what happens to the millions of people currently living in Israel under a Palestinian state? Would Jewish people actually be safe? Would secular people, dissidents, women, or gay people retain the rights they currently have? Even Arab Israelis who are openly homosexual enjoy more freedoms in Israel than they likely would under Palestinian rule.

That’s the contradiction many activists ignore. You cannot claim to support feminism, LGBT rights, and liberal democracy while also advocating for a political system that, at least currently, does not uphold those values. If human rights matter, they should matter consistently for everyone involved.

there is a lot of ignorance in this sub about the formation of palestinian identity, including from some pro-palestine people and arabs. some points zionists and israelis make about how palestinian identity developed are true, however most of the time they are followed by bigoted comments like "palestinians are fake", "palestinians are just jordanians and egyptians who should be deported" etc.

also there is a lot of ignorance in this sub mostly from non-arabs about arabism vs islamism. arabism was a secular ideology. i will start with arabism vs islamism.

how did arabism form?
arabism originated from arab christians mainly in lebanon, syria, and egypt. this was a response to how ottoman muslims treated christians, very oppressive and persecuted christians and caused christians to emigrate in large waves to the americas and the western world. the persecution was very severe especially in mount lebanon and damascus. arabism wasn't that popular until later in the ottoman empire, arab muslims started to feel the marginalization. ottomans were turkfying everything, banning arabs from holding high political positions and banning the arabic language in some aspects of life, etc. the idea was to unite all arabs regardless of religion, the idea that arabs shared more than just religion such as a language, culture, and history and therefore should unite politically to overthrow the ottomans. the movement was intentionally secular.

islamists are not secular. they want islam to dominate all aspects of life. they do not want to separate islam from the state. this is where arabists and islamists conflicted. after arab nationalists overthrew or replaced european monarchies and governments in egypt, syria, and iraq, the arab nationalist governments suppressed islamists and political islam. this led to violence between islamists and arabists, and islamists "protesting" against arabist governments. see the luxor massacre in egypt and the grand mosque seizure in saudi arabia as examples of islamists "protesting" against arabists and secularism. so saying that arabism and islamism are the same things is pure ignorance. yes arabism did lead to oppression against some minority groups such as copts, assyrians, etc. but it wasn't due to religion.

palestinian identity, how did it form?

before the british and the european powers divded the arab world after the collapse of the ottoman empire, most arabs in the levant were arabists and syrian nationalists. yes there was not a fully hardened or universally dominant palestinian national identity in the modern sense. most palestinian arabs identified irst as arabs and were arabists, the christians were syrian nationalists and supported the idea of "greater syria", which does not just include the modern syrian state, but the entire levant including some parts of mesopotamia/iraq. yes some palestinian arabs did want an independent palestinian state during the british mandate period but most palestinian arabs wanted unity with other levant states. the goal was to restore arab political power after centuries of ottoman rule and european colonialism. the development of palestinian identity was gradual not exactly non existent. the splitting of the arab world and separation of palestinians from other arabs did create the palestinian identity.

i really dont see anything wrong with saying this because it is history. but palestinians were still a people fighting for self-determination, dignity, and rights for arabic-speaking people in their homeland. i think some pro-palestine people do not want to acknowledge this because arabism has a more negative connotation today than it ever did. especially with the propaganda from some zionists that "all arabs originated from the same place" or "originated from the arabian peninsula" just because they speak arabic and wanted to unite. it's bogus. if you hear arabs especially arab christians talking about arabism nowadays, it's extremely negative. as for arab muslims, islamism is the dominant ideology nowadays. most arab muslims do want an islamic state and want to be governed by sharia. so what some zionists/israelis say about palestinian identity is correct. other times it's ignorance or bigotry.

In response to the /u/nexxwav post "A drastic realignment in US - Israel relations is necessary".

The Iran-(US-Israel) war known as Epic Fury and Roaring Lion may lead to entirely new military world order: one where Israel and America are the drivers.

The rhetoric from US and Israeli leaders, as well as recent broad and long running MOUs negotiated by the countries is the clearest sign yet that America’s military alliance system is undergoing a dramatic realignment.

The story of this war is about who proved useful, who hesitated, and who emerged as indispensable.

Israel’s performance changed the strategic conversation in Washington. After Israel’s earlier strikes on Iran, President Trump told ABC News, “I think it’s been excellent,” adding that there was “more to come.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later put the operational relationship in even more blunt terms: “Israel’s been a really strong partner in this effort,” and when an ally has “both the will and the capability,” coordinated action produces “incredible effects.”

At the same time, NATO looked like an ineffective mess struggling to answer a new kind of war. Rubio singled out Spain for denying US use of bases and asked, “Well then why are you in NATO?”. Trump has said he is considering withdrawal from the alliance, and is also moving to shrink the forces it makes available to NATO in a crisis.

It is not so easy because Congress passed a law in 2023 barring unilateral withdrawal from NATO without two-thirds Senate approval. But even without a formal withdrawal, a president can simply hollow out NATO by shifting forces elsewhere, effectively making America's involvement in NATO more a paper thing.

CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper said Epic Fury enhanced military relationships across the Middle East, with five partner nations “literally side by side with the United States in defense,” while also saying U.S. forces were “operating very closely with the state of Israel.”

Epic Fury points toward what could replace the old model: a new hard-power alliance built around countries that actually fight. Those two countries who fight are Israel and America.

That is the outline of a new world military alliance that may replace NATO: America and Israel as steering members; Gulf partners as defense, basing, and maritime-security; and other states joining issue by issue. Compared to NATO it would be faster, more regional, more missile defense focused, more technology and intelligence driven, and more willing to strike before threats mature.

The lesson of Epic Fury is blunt: America is discovering that NATO is useless. NATO allies debate. NATO allies deny access. NATO allies wait for consensus. But only Israel acts, fights, shares intelligence, and fights in the battlefield.

If NATO continues to behave like a committee while America’s real wars are being fought without NATO, NATO will simply dissolve away. America will not leave NATO in one dramatic legal act any time soon. But it may simply build something more relevant beside it, while the ineffective corpse of NATO works on the next DEI recruitment video.

The WaPost recently published a piece detailing how much of our arsenal of interceptors we have expended defending Israel in this war with Iran that Israel unilaterally incited. Here are some excerpts:

>The United States launched more than 200 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors in defense of Israel — roughly half of the Pentagon’s total inventory — along with more than 100 Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-6 interceptors fired from naval vessels in the eastern Mediterranean, said the U.S. officials, who, like others in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security matters. By contrast, Israel fired fewer than 100 of its Arrow interceptors and around 90 David’s Sling interceptors, some of which were used against less sophisticated projectiles fired by Iran-backed groups in Yemen and Lebanon.

>In total, the U.S. shot around 120 more interceptors and engaged twice as many Iranian missiles," said a U.S. administration official

>Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was central to persuading Trump to go to war, promising an offensive that would inspire regime change and rid the country of its ability to develop a nuclear weapon, said U.S. officials.

>*On Tuesday, Netanyahu and Trump held a tense phone call about the path forward, said U.S. and Middle Eastern officials. The Israeli leader's persistent pressure to restart the war has irritated some U.S. officials, particularly given the strain that renewed fighting would impose on the Pentagon's munitions supply.

>The United States launched more than 200 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors in defense of Israel — roughly half of the Pentagon’s total inventory — along with more than 100 Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-6 interceptors fired from naval vessels in the eastern Mediterranean, said the U.S. officials, who, like others in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity ​ 91 groups in Yemen and Lebanon.****.

>"Israel is not capable of fighting and winning wars on its own, but nobody actually knows this, because they never see the back end," said a second administration official.***

>If fighting does resume, the extent to which Iran's allies in the region may join in will be a significant factor, said U.S. officials. During the last round of fighting, Israel could generate only 50 percent of the airstrikes by the end of March compared with the beginning of the war because its aircraft and pilots were "worn down" by operations against Houthi militants in Yemen and airstrikes targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon, said a U.S. official

>Israel relies more heavily on lower-tier systems such as Iron Dome and David's Sling to counter projectiles from groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, while conserving its more sophisticated interceptors. The result, officials said, was a "significant" drawdown of U.S. stockpiles while Israel was able to maintain its higher-end air defense stockpiles

THAAD interceptors -13.5 million a piece

SM-3 interceptors - 28 million

SM-6 interceptors- 9.6 million

So now we have reportedly depleted half of our worldwide arsenal of THAAD interceptors ..even reallocating systems from South Korea..leaving us dangerously exposed and incapable of protecting our own territory and other allies. Meanwhile, we already manufacture and provide much of the interceptor supply for Israel’s three-layer missile defense system, all free...So Israel is conserving its own high-end interceptors that we gave them, while we continue depleting our own arsenal to protect them at the expense of our national security...absolutely fuckin outrageous lol

The piece also claims that Netanyahu is persistently pressuring Trump to restart or escalate the war despite concerns about America’s dangerously low supply of munitions...munitions we are completely incapable of replenishing quickly enough.

It further argues that the IDF cannot sustain the same operational tempo it maintained at the start of the conflict because pilots and personnel are fatigued from ongoing operations in Lebanon and Yemen.

And my favorite excerpt of the piece : "Israel is not capable of fighting and winning wars on its own, but nobody actually knows this, because they never see the back end,"...let that sink in

This only further solidifies the need for a drastic realignment in our relationship. All aid needs to be terminated ASAP, and Israel must be treated the same as any other ally and required to purchase all of its munitions. They are lobbying for a 20-year extension, along with an increase to the $3.8 billion in free hardware we provide every year...an absurd ask.

Now, the pro-Israel camp loves to claim that this benefits America. Somehow, taxpayers giving Israel a gift certificate for billions in free U.S. hardware is supposed to benefit us. Well, let’s unpack that...

• weapons testing
• access to Israeli technology
• maintaining U.S. influence in the Middle East
• intelligence sharing

Those are all the most commonly cited benefits. But my question is: Why do any of these alleged benefits depend on providiing aid? Would intelligence sharing, military cooperation, or technological partnerships suddenly cease if aid were discontinued? If so, wouldn’t that prove the relationship is fundamentally transactional? Interested to hear answers...

I would refer to US relations with other major allies Germany, South Korea and Japan in particular. All three of those states were also dependent upon US aid post WW2 in order to rebuild their countries from ruins. All three are hugely important and powerful allies that host major military bases. All three share intelligence, purchase and test US hardware, share advanced tech and are crucial to American influence and power projection in their respective regions. All three voluntarily ceased receiving aid and do not ask or expect to receive handouts

And here's another interesting factoid that seldom gets mentioned. Israel is the only developed nation that receives aid from other countries. They also rank dead last amongst developed nations in providing aid themselves to help other less developed nations. It is a fractional pittance that is hard to calculate given how insignificant and inconsistent the amount is. Israel would do well to join the rest of the developed world and pass on the help instead of demanding more

What's clear is that this parasitic relationship is unsustainable and is severely detrimental to the United States as it is jeopardizing our national security ​and the security of the rest of our allies in more ways then one.

Haaretz published testimonies from Israeli soldiers serving in Lebanon which I think provide a good window into what the day to day looks like for some soldiers. However, while they are framed as “concerning” by Haaretz, I don’t think these testimonies point to Israeli failures in Lebanon, I think they point to how the IDF is very effectively completing their mission in southern Lebanon before the ceasefire and now within the constraints of the U.S. imposed ceasefire. While these soldiers quoted may be harming the war effort by talking about what they and their fellow soldiers are doing, it also sounds like they are outliers and most soldiers have found creative ways to boost morale and understand the mission.

Paywalled: https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/magazine/2026-05-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/0000019e-3fb3-d104-abde-fffb9a750000

Not Paywalled archive: https://archive.is/nOrkF

"The method was fixed. Every evening, after the sun went down, the convoy of the mobility department would come in. Their mission was to bring us supplies. Food, oil, ammunition. Whatever was needed. But there was also another, unofficial mission. To take out all the loot. To unload all the loot at the post where the headquarters was located, so that it would be waiting for the fighters when they went home. The mobility soldiers, of course, didn't turn out to be suckers, they would take things of equal value for themselves as well.'Just choose what you want,' they would tell them. And there was no shortage of loot.

"The village we operated in belonged to rich people – full of villas with pools, luxury cars, jewelry. Almost every house had valuables.We would enter houses, first opening them 'wet', meaning shooting in all directions, and then searching. After realizing that the area was clear, the real mission would begin - locating valuable items. It started with small things and slowly got bigger. People loaded the Humvees with carpets, motorcycles, armchairs, heaters. Entire warehouses. You could hear soldiers over the age of 30 arguing - 'I saw this before,' 'You already took a lot from the previous house.'

"But the highlight was not the houses but the shops. Soldiers would come in and take out all the goods, whole boxes of sweets, cigarettes, cleaning supplies, even writing instruments. Someone took a white school bag for his son. Another took a lathe. Even the hand soap at the post came from Lebanon. At any moment you could see soldiers walking around the village with civilian equipment on them, it felt like the main mission."

"Most senior commanders didn't care. Soldiers were looting even when the commanding officer came to visit and he turned a blind eye... Some [soldiers] said it was a mitzvah, they gave it a religious justification. Others said that they were destroying everything anyway, so there was no reason to leave valuables there.”

Systematized looting may seem like a break in discipline- but as this passage alludes to, everything is being flattened anyway, and systematized looting appears to have boosted morale in Lebanon, just like in Gaza. Many of these soldiers, reservists or not, have been serving for a very long time and the will of the enemy people is not yet broken- now this soldier is criticizing religious justifications and ways for soldiers to get through their day?

"For many of the religious people who were with me, it was a supreme mission. The battalion commander was the most extreme. He refused to go home, the smile never left his face. He was elated, like a passionate fan whose team wins the championship after a 20-year drought. He used to say, 'What was will never be. What we destroy will never be rebuilt.' When someone would talk about returning to Israel, he would correct: 'Here, too, this is Israel.“

This battalion commander is painted as “extreme”, but the formal mission is to flatten everything in areas controlled by the IDF except for a few non-Shia villages, this is official and the point is to permanently cleanse the Shia- both Hezbollah and their support base- from southern Lebanon. It sounds like the battalion commander understands the mission, and the soldier quoted here doesn’t. There may be a U.S. imposed “ceasefire” that Israel doesn’t want, but there’s plenty of work to be done for the main mission, cleansing Lebanon below the Litani river, and soldiers are getting bonus pay in the form of systematized looting of everything that isn’t nailed down and would have been destroyed anyway.

The rest of this article talks about soldier stress and navigating drone attacks, but Israel is getting a chance to develop countermeasures while facing a still very inferior enemy, which may pay off in future conflicts, and casualties are still orders of magnitude in Israel’s favor. It does sound like some of the looting has decreased or at least soldiers were asked to be more discrete about it due to international coverage, and this may harm morale, but at the end of the day soldiers are making good progress in cleansing a large swathe of territory while reaping personal benefits, so I’d consider Israel’s current efforts here a success. Thoughts?

> Here's a challenge no pro-Palestinian can answer:

> Name one Jewish village that Jews "stole from Arabs" — before the Arabs launched their war to destroy the Jewish community in 1947.

> Think about that. Pro-Palestinians accuse Jews of stealing land, yet they cannot name a single Jewish village built on stolen land. Not one.

> Everything the Arabs lost, they lost in a war they started.

> And by the way — I can give you plenty of examples of places Arabs took from Jews before 1948. I'm attaching one photo: Hebron, 1929.

Can anyone prove this poster wrong? All the big name places, Deir Yassin, Lod, all occurred after the beginning of the war in November 1947.

It sounds completely absurd to me.

I totally accept that Trump has no idea what he's doing in Iran, but I always thought Israel knew what it was doing. It knows the region, has incredible intelligence and generally makes rational decisions.

What do you think? Did they really want to bring back Ahmadinejad? Is there really no better option?

What do you guys think about this leftist idea that US senators being okay with giving Israel money for their defense is equivalent to them supporting genocide? The main argument I see is that giving them money enables them because they now have more money freed up to commit genocide. It's also seen as a cosign for the abominable behavior that takes place. Someone even analogized it to helping Nazi's get weapons.

Is there another argument for this outside of the idea that this is for defense for attacks that Hamas might engage in against them? I think this also broadly questions the posture for how the US should engage with an ally that is possibly going off the deep end. I'm not entirely sure how allyship goes and if it's something that should be strictly conditioned on behavior that we condone. I highly doubt this is the way allyship has gone in the past but it seems to be how a lot of leftists want us to engage with politicians. It's why people like Briana Joy Grey say they will endorse Tucker Carlson over AOC. It also feels hypocritical because the US behavior isn't in the morally acceptable area either. I sympathize with this position because it seems correct but I don't think it's a realistic standard to hold politicians to considering the level of influence Israel has over our government and the level of salience foreign affairs has in American politics let alone the Israel Palestine issue. On one hand you should probably consistently engage in behavior that signals to your allies that they are still allies but that should be weighed against how beneficial they are as a ally. I think the calculus here is probably that Israel gives really good Intel and is the most powerful military in the Middle East so it's something that we can stomach.

I think the term “Zionist” should have died in 1948; that is the year the ideology achieved its goal. Abolitionism was largely achieved in the 19th century yet no one calls themselves an abolitionist today. In 1947 the British decided to split India in two, largely based on religion, a majority Hindu state named India, and a majority Muslim state named Pakistan. Many Indians even today may think the creation of Pakistan was flawed, unjust, or unnecessary in some way. Yet there is no term equivalent to “anti Zionism”, as Pakistan simply exists and isn’t going anywhere.
Zion is a certain hill in Jerusalem, but the name eventually became another term for the entire land of Israel. Originally Zionism was essentially the name for Jewish nationalism, consequentially desiring a state and more specifically in the original Jewish Homeland. The persistence of the term continued in Israel as Israelis loved the term, and were uncertain of Israel’s fate. Today to the typical Israeli, “Zionism” largely signals Israeli patriotism. 
However this persistence of the term allowed critics of Israel to label themselves as anti Zionists. Zionism today is simply one of those words that can be a great example of contemporary semantic drift as it means different things to different people. To anti Zionists, Zionism is effectively not much less than a slur. Sometimes it is even used not just for Israeli policy, but anyone complicit in Western power structures. As an example, when the President of the United States seized the authoritarian head of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, the acting Venezuelan president Delcy Rodríguez condemned the incident as an attack with a “Zionist” tint. Show up to a pro Palestinian protest in London with a Union Jack and I don't think you'll be very welcomed. But ask yourself, Why? Because a “Zionist” is one who would have fought aboriginal Australians, one who would have banished native Americans to Oklahoma, one who would have enslaved populations and remained wealthy oppressing them. The slave owner, the imperialist, the nationalist, the colonialist, the capitalist; the eternal exploiter.
Anti Zionism is often defined as the belief that the creation of Israel was unjust or flawed in some way. Yet to many of course, based on their interpretation of what “Zionism” is, it can easily encompass opposition to racism, imperialism, settler colonialism, genocide, and alike. And because the typical Israeli sees themselves as a proud Zionist today, one can easily face unjust discrimination. Sure, it’s technically not antisemitism, but a default “anti Israelism” is bad for the same reasons antisemitism is bad in the first place.

The truth is uncomfortable to anyone involved. In short? This conflict exists because Israelis as a collective do not appreciate the land's uniqueness and their own.

The "Why" - inner politics

It's no secret we have an issue of inner politics, and more often than not we're too involved. Since December 2022 the current Israeli government is targeted a bit too often. With all due respect, everyone's talking as if they knew all along what would happen on that day and would in fact act differently. What I see is people projecting their part in the pre-Oct7 conception onto Netanyahu. But all Israelis have indirectly contributed to this mess, **myself included**.

Israel's thing is not "the only democracy in the ME" as usually portrayed, but Judaism and the idea of faith that is too demonized nowadays. Israel is no different to "When in Rome do as the Romans do", it's called "the Jewish state" for a reason - yet we cannot collectively agree about what Jewish means or where it becomes hollow (if at all).

The Palestinians

Now this conflict enters the picture, like a kid who learns the hard way irl what he could learn while in school. The influence of the Palestinian issue and Islam is global by design, because the Israeli and Jewish purpose is worldwide, which we reject and run away from. The Islamic global Caliphate is equalivalent to the Jewish "Tikkun Olam" (world repair), because as long as the Jews won't step into their role - someone else will.

Semantic clues

interlinguistics prove my claim. Arabs in Hebrew is "ערבים" (Aravim), the root is ע and ר and ב - these letters also appear in the Hebrew term for Jewish mutual care and involvement - ערבות הדדית (arvut hadadit). In other words, the Arab role is to force the Israelis to unite together and over time it'll be voluntary - corresponding to "בין אדם לחברו" (between man and his comrade). Islam? The same but regarding a relationship with Him (בין אדם למקום; between man and God).

The name "Islam" is another key:

In Arabic "the religion of Islam" is "دين الإسلام" (din al-Islam), in hebrew it's "דת האיסלאם" (dat HaIslam). There's a Hebrew word named "din" (דין) meaning law or judgement (like דיין/dayan, a judge; AKA shofet/שופט). There's a Hebrew prefix "אי" that means without (similar to "a-" and "im-"), the Arabic word سلام (salam) that hides within - means "peace". So all together? "The religion of Islam" literally means in Hebrew "the judgement for the absence of peace", lack thereof among whom? Israelis with one another. That's the whole point of this conflict, and anti-Semitism along with the Palestinian idea continuously exist to test the Israeli and Jewish resolve.

P.S. the Arabic name for Jerusalem, "القدس" (al-Quds)? It means "the sanctity"; ق = ק, د = ד, س = ס. Hebrew ס (s) is the same as שׂ, which resembles שׁ (sh/ش) - swap these and overall you've got "הקודש" (HaQodesh) - "the sanctity". How come Islam views Jerusalem with the reverence that Israelis seem to have lost?

A recent post asked "What is Israel?" in reference to Ben-Gvir's recent clown act, and it quickly filled up with fairly predictable snark and deflection.

For a reality check, consider the state of Arab (and Iranian and Afghani and Pakistani) Muslim (Sunni and Shia) civilization:

- Arab (etc)-on-Arab (etc) political violence has caused 100s of thousands dead, millions displaced, many cities reduced to rubble

- there is at least weekly rocket & missile firings, shootings, suicide and homicide bombings, vehicular rammings, stabbings.. at mosques, markets, hotels, checkpoints, schools, hospitals..

- above noted violence is carried out by a thousand fanatical Islamist-mafia-terror gangs and their support networks, led by entrenched or aspiring warlords (who are also often proxies for aggressive foreign petro-states): IRGC, Hezb, Hamas, PIJ, AQ, ISIS, Taliban, Al Shabaab, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Boko Haram, Ansar Allah, and many dozens of smaller such groups in many lands in the region

- failures of the Arab springs to bring about government by citizen consent in a dozen repressive countries under authoritarian rule: regime critics still routinely brutalized with impunity by state security tough guys; corrupt judicial systems with sham trials; 10s of thousands of political prisoners languishing in terribly cruel conditions; executions.

- failures of civil wars in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya to fully resolve

The region surrounding Israel is a bubbling cauldron of anger, hate, conspiracies, incitement, intimidation and misery.

An adult Israeli has observed all this play out over decades. They have also observed the academic/NGO/media complex accuse Israel of being a particularly heinous regional actor.

This is the context in which some segments of Israeli society have in recent decades adopted highly illiberal ideas, and increasingly talk and sometimes behave with aggression and callousness.

I'll end with a comment about the news event that inspired u/M007_MD's polemic.

The very existence of these flotillas is a backhanded compliment to the advanced morality of Israelis / Zionists / Jews. Why? Because "nice, humane" Western activists would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER try such a stunt where "strong Arab (etc) men" are fighting each other as has taken place frequently and recently in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghani-Pakistani borderlands, Iranian-Pakistani (Baluchi) borderlands, and more. Israel's treatment of these activists is very benign by regional standards.

Many Israel critics know this but will deny or try to deflect, because of a special hatred that even they don't fully understand.

If Ben Gvir doesn't represent Israel… according to Gideon Sa'ar.

And Smotrich doesn't represent it… according to Lapid.

And Netanyahu doesn't represent it… according to the opposition, because he "hijacked the state."

And the settlers and the Hilltop Youth don't represent Israel… according to Netanyahu.

And the Haredim don't represent "the Israeli" because they don't enlist.

And the soldiers don't represent "Israel's values" every time a new scandal emerges in a church in southern Lebanon.

And the opposition doesn't represent it… according to the government.

And the judiciary doesn't represent it… according to the right.

And the protesters in Tel Aviv don't represent Israel… according to the coalition.

And the international community treats "the actions of the Israeli government" as if they were something separate from Israel itself and don't represent it.

Then who represents Israel?

As you probably know, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has released video footage on social media of himself berating detained activists from the Gaza flotilla, and he is proud of it.

This is not some random extremist whom you can say doesn't represent Israel. He is the Minister of National Security and has the police and security forces under his command. He is attacking unarmed people who are tied up and detained by Israelis.

Zionists always say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, which means people like Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and Netanyahu are chosen by the Israeli people, so Ben-Gvir's behavior does represent Israel and represents everything Israel stands for.

I want to begin by apologizing for my last post. I made broad generalizations about both sides of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, especially pro Israelis, and for that I am sorry.

For this post I will share why I believe there shouldn't be a Jewish state. I accept that my reasoning and arguments may be flawed. Therefore I am willing to listen to counter arguments presented to me constructively and respectfully.

Here are the most common reasons given for why the existence of Israel is necessary and why I don't believe they are valid:

1. The Jewish people need a state of their own as a refuge from antisemitism: In the immediate aftermath of the holocaust, such logic made perfect sense. However, that was a long time ago. Looking back, I see two reasons for why this logic doesn't hold. First, there are significant Jewish communities in many countries. Therefore in order for us to face an existential threat without a Jewish state, the governments of every country on earth would have to simultaneously become genocidal against Jews. Such a thing has never once happened in the history of the world to Jews or to any ethnic/ethnoreligious group as far as I know. Second, Jews in the US have never been under existential threat for the country's nearly 250 year history. While many Americans hold antisemitic views, no law has ever been made at any level of government in our country explicitly targeting Jews specifically. The fact that the US has no history of explicitly anti Jewish laws shows that a single form of antisemitism has never been powerful enough in America to pose an existential threat to American Jews. In America, antisemitism isn't a unifying force, but rather it's split between the far right and far left.
2. Jews, like all other peoples, have a right to national self determination: The difference between Zionism and other peoples' nationalisms is that Zionism calls for building a Jewish state in a region that other groups, most notably the Palestinians, call home. I believe the only state which should exist in former mandatory Palestine is a multiethnic state for all its citizens just as much as it is for Jews. I believe in a state for Jews, not a Jewish state.
3. The Jewish connection to the Levant means Israel is necessary: While Jews certainly have historical and religious ties to the land we call Eretz Yisrael, again so do other peoples such as Palestinians and Druze.

So is a Jewish state necessary?

Considering that protesters with European,Canadian and American citizenships were stripped naked, their hands tied, humillated and subsequently beaten and tortured in videos that they themselves published on social media?

If this is how they treat the citizens of their closest allied countries just for protesting, wouldn't they treat Palestinians even worse?

https://x.com/itamarbengvir/status/2057046925417824697

https://x.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/2057071603595317488

https://x.com/IsraeliPM/status/2057095673669918753