I’ve answered this in the post to another commenter, but I am 100% serious.

I see. So you think Israel wants the hostages to be kept in order to give them a public excuse to continue their campaign?

Thank you for the information. I did not know this.

Thank you for adding all of that information to your original post. I will read through it!

I’m referring to this part of your timeline-

“~600 BCE: The first major expulsion of Jews from areas variously known through time as Palestine, Israel, Jerusalem, and many others. ~538 BCE: Jews are allowed to return (until next time). ~538 BCE through 1896 CE: For the sake of brevity, let’s just say Jewish people rarely had real control over this land and were consistently persecuted and/or expelled from wherever they were.”

Maybe I’m misreading it, but it seems to imply that they were, as a people, born from that land, and systemically were persecuted through the course of around 2400 years.

I guess I meant to ask why is it morally okay for Palestinians to want to do that, but not morally ok for Israelis to want to do that. Is it because Israel is an apartheid, ethnostate?

I actually didn’t realize Gaza was a concentration camp.

Why does Hamas get to say they want to eradicate Israel as a state and have Arab-majority control over the region, but Israel doesn’t get to say they want to control the entire region? What makes who correct to say that in either case?

Thank you for the detailed timeline. However, it raises a serious question for me. Am I misreading, or does your timeline show that the Jews were systematically oppressed and dislocated from their home land for about 2400 years? If so, wouldn’t that make it understandable why they’re so hostile to a foreign group that again wants to displace them from their home?

Thank you for such a detailed response. Considering your views that ethnostates should be done away with, an interesting question came up for me. Would you be in favor of forcefully going in and forcing regime change in Israel?

I think I generally agree with your viewpoint here. This seems to be separate from the original conversation, and more about whether or not war is sometimes necessary, and if it is then you’ve got to step back and look at the larger picture and realize there’s going to be a lot of pain on both sides, the good side and the bad side. I think it’s ok to empathize with that, but probably not ok to say that fighting is never necessary. The same people will then go on to say it’s ok to physically assault modern day Nazis.

I wouldn’t mind punching a Nazi personally. But I also realize war sometimes is necessary, and that it will be a painful process.

To me that seems the most optimal and level headed solution, but as you can see many people disagree. A lot of people in this thread are calling for the elimination of Israel as a state, and that confuses me, because they’re saying the things that Israel is SAYING that their enemies are saying, further justifying, in Israel’s eyes, their own actions.

With this post, I guess I was looking for more historical facts and context on who is historically the bad guy in this situation. I’ve gotten some of that. I’ll keep studying the situation and I think I’m going to actively try to avoid getting sucked into the idea that one side or the other should be completely eliminated. My gut just has a really negative reaction to that sort of talk.

Many civilians probably prefer peace, but it seems like each side wants peace on their own terms which seem at odds with the other sides terms.

I could be wrong.

I hope I am, and that the vast majority just want to settle everything peacefully.

I actually agree that he dog whistles quite a bit, but his specific statement this particular time is not that. I think the less honest we are, and the more we just try to make the next sensationalist headline, the less credibility we have. That’s what the other side does. It is not what we should do. He says plenty we can hold him accountable for, we have zero need to make stuff up.

I generally agree that the response seems lopsided. However, I also find it odd that Hamas simply hasn’t returned the hostages. This to me signifies two possibilities- they are not actually interested in peace, or they don’t believe that returning the hostages will stop Israel’s destruction.

Would that appraisal of the situation seem reasonable?

Thanks for the info. I’ve saved this video to my watch later list, and I’ll let you know what I think about it when I do.

I’ve seen many people in this post say the best solution is a two state system. You’re saying that’s not what you would prefer, and that Israel should be wiped out?

I don’t have a particular opinion on your view because my knowledge of what Israel and Hamas has done is admittedly limited, but I would lean towards the idea that you’re justifying Israel’s reaction and statements that the reason they are taking the action they are is because of, well, ideas like yours.

I think, from what I’ve learned over the past week of exploring this situation, that a two state solution is fair and striving for peace and understanding between the two parties is desirable. I seem to have an innately negative reaction to what you suggest here.

That’s fine. Some of my leftist friends feel the same way, like I’m not asking in good faith. I don’t have any way to convince you that I am. I just feel like I’m not educated on the subject and that’s why I’m looking for a wide array of facts and opinions.

Personally I think your perception is part of a larger problem of a breakdown in communication and education, where people automatically assume the worst of everyone’s intentions because of either experience with other bad actors, or because you feel like since you have the knowledge you have and it feels intuitive to you, you feel like everyone else must also have that knowledge and anyone outside of that sphere is simply trying to be a disruptor.

I’m sorry, I don’t see a video link.

Question- isn’t Hamas constantly attacking Israel with the stated goal to eradicate them?