Raze

This misunderstands the colonial mindset. In South Africa they used the excuse apartheid was necessary for safety, but the second it began hurting them economically and they were losing public support in the western countries they liked, they dismantled it. In apartheid South Africa whites were only 10% of the population. In historic Palestine Jews are 50% and have an even larger power gap, yet they refuse to give Palestinian equal rights or even remove the illegal settlements and give them a state despite all Arab states offering normalization for it. That’s because they feel the losses they take are worth having a racial supremacist state. As soon as the costs of subjugating Palestinians is higher than the benefits, you’ll see them flip and say they were against it the entire time.

Unfortunately this is largely nonsense, early zionists wanted to turn Judaism into a nationalist war like ideology, they only adopted the holocaust as part of the national narrative after they realized it helps get support from western guilt. In Israel holocaust survivors were mocked as “soap people” and to this day a large amount live in poverty and suffer from loneliness. https://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-3-holocaust-survivors-cant-afford-all-the-groceries-they-need-poll/ They know another holocaust won’t happen, if it does it’s as a reaction to Israel’s behavior such as a major war that leads to the Samson option, in fact currently Israeli Jews are leaving Israel for the western countries that were responsible for the holocaust, in record numbers. They don’t care about having a safe space for Jews, they want Israel to persist even if it’s unsafe. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/17/israelis-moving-live-europe-rejuvenating-jewish-communities The reason is three fold, - they’ve adopted a victim narrative and refuse to acknowledge other groups of people are equally deserving of human rights. example, nytimes interviewed an israeli woman who discussed why their was so much anger at childrens entertainer ms Rachel for sharing information about injured Palestinian children: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/arts/television/ms-rachel-gaza-israel.html - they are extremely racist towards Palestinians and view them as subhumans polls find the majority of Israelis believe Jews deserve special privileges and have racist beliefs about Palestinians such as not wanting to live in the same building as them: https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/ - a radical religious group believes god is telling them they need to remove Palestinians and recreate greater Israel to bring the messiah back. They have outsized control of the government because the mainstream right uses them to maintain power and the mainstream left refuses to work with Palestinian parties partially due to racial supremacist beliefs, leading to them being a minority.

- western governments are funding and arming Israel, so citizens of those countries are implicated - more people died in Syria, but Syria has 10x the population as Gaza, In Syria 80% of casualties were male, in Gaza its 40%

That doesn’t mean their actions or positions are automatically worse morally. An adult has higher moral development than a child, but if the adult rapes someone, their action was morally worse. Even the major terrorism examples like suicide bombings or plane hijacking’s only showed up after they had already been occupied for decades btw. Your mistake is assuming that’s always an outgrowth of moral development as opposed to strategic positioning and desperation. If I took a highly morally developed ethics professor and locked him in a prison with no food and he starts cannibalizing the inmates would we say I guess he is less developed than the average joes outside the prison who don’t engage in that behavior? I don’t think so.

This would mean accepting three assumptions that aren’t necessarily true - greater technological and economic development means greater moral development, not necessarily, there are practical and strategic reasons beyond development that cause this. The moral development of the far right Israelis is probably not far off from Hamas, they just have much of economic support and a tactically advantageous position far above them. It’s actually happened many times where a colonial power lifts up one minority economically and technologically to use them to help subjugate other minorities, something like that happened in Rwanda, usually they had similar development but one ended up in a far more advantageous position politically and economically. - the lower developed civilization will always be morally worse than the higher developed civilization. Not true, a group with higher development can have a worse or equal moral position depending on their actions. Nazi Germany would have much higher development than say some African tribes that co-exist with each other with some tensions, yet Nazi Germanys positions and actions were morally worse. The Middle East had less development than Europe during the 19th and 20th century, but prior to Zionism they treated the Jewish minority much more morally than they were treated in Europe. - Baseline development dictates victory. It doesn’t, there are many different factors. You can argue the Afrikaaners had higher development than black south Africans, yet apartheid ended. The French had higher development than the Algerians, yet French Algeria collapsed. Strategically Israel’s position of dominance over Palestinians depends on various things such as international economic support, military dominance, and social cohesion. These can all be damaged and lead to the failure of Zionism even if it has higher development as a society compared to native Palestinians simply because of long term strategic issues. Yes the average Hamas soldier is probably less developed than the average IDF soldier, Hamas soldiers are orphans raised in a ghetto and IDF soldiers can be from Europe or America and travel to first world countries. But if they both kill a civilian by choice, their actions would be equally morally wrong and illegal under any fair interpretation of international law.

Killing civilians is not proof it was pre-planned. For example if their orders were to go and kidnap idf but they recklessly endanger civilians and some soldiers massacre civilians, it wasn’t pre planned in the case even when they killed civilians. There was video of one Hamas commander telling his soldiers something about not killing civilians. Of course they very well ended up killing many, but that would indicate it wasn’t the original plan. Most of the areas they attacked were military bases. Feel free to show me evidence they went in planning on massacring civilians as the purpose of the attack. The examples of idf massacres I linked were when there wasn’t a reasonable military target, indicating it was a pre-planned massacre of civilians. If we are counting any attack that also had civilians massacred, I could link 50 of those from Israel. But those can’t be assumed to be pre-planned as they can argue only the military purpose was planned and the rest was collateral.

The Qibya example linked there was clearly pre-planned retribution. I already linked you a incident in 82 where they let a militia into a refugee camp to kill civilians on purpose. The dahiya doctrine is an operational procedure targeting civilian structures. I haven’t even seen proof oct 7 was a pre-planned massacre of civilians, as far as we know they werent aware the festival was happening, so far it’s unclear how many of the civilians were killed by Hamas as opposed to other groups or the Hannibal directive. I don’t see how that’s morally any different than the documented reports of Israel bombing civilian structures in Gaza or shooting unarmed civilians carrying white flags, which was before this current war. The current war is so beyond any of this it’s ridiculous to even draw a comparison btw. Even if you disagree about the past examples I linked it is insane you are still under the delusion that the current war is avoiding civilian casualties in any shape or form. I don’t know what more possible evidence can be given this is not the case if the overwhelming amount of current evidence, literally to the point where every major human rights organization and international law organization is saying this.

The main reason why countries like Israel can get away with it is because of these kinds of double standards.

this isn’t true. They’ve went on rampages slaughtering civilians by choice multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Qasim_massacre they even have a military doctrine called the dahiya doctrine specifically designed to destroy civilian structures on purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine Plus there are countless videos of individual instances of idf shooting civilians. And who knows how many not captured on video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqzE4hkuee4 https://x.com/btselem/status/1717554938337701929 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/19/israeli-troops-gaza-shootings-civilians https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/10/video-appears-show-cheers-israeli-sniper-shoots-palestinian They are literally starving 2 million people at this point by blocking all food and medicine. How is that avoiding civilian casualties? Israel arrests civilian Palestinians constantly, the majority of Palestinian men have spent time in prison. They’ve called their prisoners “bargaining chips” in the past. In fact most of the Palestinian prisoners israel has released so far weren’t charged with any crime, and many were women or minors.

Destroying Zionism isn’t the same as wanting to ethnically cleanse israel. A Islamist could want to destroy Israel but be fine with Jews living there as long as they got to have their Islamist government.

So why didn’t they ethnically cleanse the Jews and Christians living their prior to Zionism? Jihadists would want to install some version of Islamic law, that doesn’t call for ethnic cleansing by default.

Hamas hasn’t engaged in ethnic cleansing. You could say that’s because they’re not capable of it, but irregardless it isn’t their action. Terrorism yes, but so did the ANC and Algerian rebels, and it wasn’t assumed they wanted ethnic cleansing.

Right, but that’s also rhetoric. So we should look at the proposals they themselves offered.

So why isn’t the offer to demolish the illegal settlements in the west bank and move them there while Gaza is rebuilt then let them return? Why isn’t the offer to move the civilians into the Israeli lands where they were from before israel ethnically cleansed them? Why is the offer permanent expulsion of the ethnic group? Or why do they support blocking aid and Israel destroying 90% of buildings making their lives more miserable? Because, they want their home to be unlivable to remove them as a population, as it is ethnic cleansing.

So we can’t trust their own founders words or their own charters? What exactly is the source that they want to ethnically cleanse israel then? Then why did they offer compromises? Saying they’ll do a 10 year ceasefire in exchange for a state is a compromise, saying they’ll disarm in exchange for a state is a compromise, saying they’ll cede power to the PA is a compromise.

No it wasn’t, their original charter called for a Palestinian state between the river and the sea, and some rhetoric about expelling Jewish immigrants from Europe, but not all Jews. Btw, that charter was written by like 12 people under siege while Israel was literally massacring 1000 civilians during the first intifada. This is from their 2017 charter: This is far closer to the international legal consensus than Israel’s position, from Likud’s charter: The PA doesn’t call for ethnic cleansing, yet prior to oct 7 they were actually undergoing more ethnic cleansing from Israel as they built settlements in the West Bank and demolished Palestinian homes. And again, what a group would hypothetically want to do is not the same as what another group actually did and is doing. Israel did the nakba and is trying to do it again, actually doing ethnic cleansing is worse than a group that would hypothetically want to do it if they could. If I ethnically cleanse your family and occupy them, and you say you’d like to ethnically cleanse me if you could after I did that, then I start trying to ethnically cleanse your family again, it would absurd to put me and you on the same level. And even more absurd to absolve others for supporting me while I do that while denouncing you for wanting to do it.

- these are quotes from the founder of Hamas - in the end you are responsible for what you do, not what you would hypothetically want to do. International law as a position of two states on 1967 Borders, Hamas said in the past they would accept a long term ceasefire in exchange for it, more recently they’ve said they’d disarm for it or give up power to the PA. Israel says their will not be a Palestinian state and it wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza. - western countries are enabling Israel to do this, they are not enabling Hamas to do this, therefore they are complicit in acts as bad as what they claim Hamas wants.

Polls find the majority of Israelis support full ethnic cleansing of Gaza and blocking all aid. It isn’t just the deep right wing.

Hamas’s goal was capturing Israelis to trade for Palestinian prisoners. Israels goal is complete destruction of Gaza and its people. Israel has *worse* intentions. Even if it didn’t, the idea that intentions absolve you of doing worse than the people you call evil terrorists is absurd.

The Israeli army has admitted over 80% of casualties are civilian. https://www.ha-makom.co.il/1058990-2/ This is a ratio of 4.5 civilians per 1 combatant. For comparison for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan it was 2-3 combatants per 1 civilian. And on Oct 7 it was 2.1 civilians per 1 combatant. they’ve done that repeatedly in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Yunis_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Rafah_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre Also, this is the account from IDF soldiers on the current war https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-12-18/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-expose-arbitrary-killings-and-rampant-lawlessness-in-gazas-netzarim-corridor/00000193-da7f-de86-a9f3-fefff2e50000

The far right bros will memory hole this, I guarantee it.

No, they weren’t. What was offered at best required letting israel maintain 80% of its illegal settlements which split apart all across their land, annex more vital land, and give israel control of palestines airspace, borders (which again tear apart the state), and have the right to invade at any time. In other words, permanent occupation, not an actual state. Oct 7 saw 900 civilians killed. Gaza has see over 50,000. The only reason you could consider those at all comparable is if you think Palestinian life is worth less. If you want a more accurate comparison, look up deir yassin, Qibya, sabra and shatila, Gaza 2008, Gaza 2014, or the great march of return. Of course all done to Palestinians, and before oct 7 when everyone acts like it all started. The “rising peace” was Israel trying to force normalization with Saudi Arabia while refusing to grant Palestinians freedom, even showing a map of the new Middle East where Palestine didn’t exist. Thats like saying apartheid South Africa had peace. Maybe peace for Israelis, but not for the millions of Palestinians living under a brutal occupation which israel was trying to cement as permanent. The Arab peace initiative has been on the table for decades, it offers full normalization as long as Israel just follows international law and stops occupying Palestine. It was rejected. The US has unilaterally blocked a two state solution at the UN every year when, literally every other country in the world votes for it. The US is in fact the problem. How exactly can they join us in the “21st century” when Israel kept 2 million under a blockade in Gaza, so brutal that it had 40% unemployment because israel purposefully crushed the economy, and after going on regular bombardments caused the majority to have serious depression and majority of children to have signs of ptsd, in addition to lack of access to clean water, and the other 2 million occupied in the West Bank. With their land systematically stolen by settlers, who regularly go on pogroms against them. By September, 2023 was already the deadliest year for Palestinian children in the West Bank since the intifada. This is the “peace” you were referring to. It doesn’t matter if you’re tired of the “poor Palestinians” thing, they are a occupied population facing brutal repression. They have not refused every chance to gain a resolution. Go look up the UN votes on a two state solution. This is just Israeli propaganda to justify their repression and subjugation. The Oslo accords were not giving them a state, it was supposed to eventually lead to it, but Netanyahu himself brags about sabotoging it. “From the river to the sea” is the moral position, ideally you would have all who live from the river to the sea have full equal rights. That was the PLO’s original goal, a equal binational state. But israel brutally fought them until they submitted to the concept of partition. Even Hamas, though they’d of course prefer complete control, altered their position in 2017 to say they’d accept a long term ceasefire in exchange for a state on the 1967 borders. The problem is, Israel refuses to give up its occupation of Palestine. They have said multiple times that they are against a Palestinian state. Zionism is a colonial ideology, the early zionists themselves referred to it as colonialism. Other ethnic groups exist correct, one such group is Palestinians, who in order to maintain their racial supremacist state Israel keeps brutally occupied without human rights and engages in regular massacres of. It’s also interesting you say it’s a trope to say the conflict goes back thousands of years, yet then bring up Arab colonialism. It also doesn’t go back thousands of years, prior to Zionism Palestinians lived peaceful to with a Jewish and Christian minority.

Fighting soldiers maintaining an apartheid and keeping you in a ghetto is legitimate under international law. Ukraine has also killed civilians, that doesn’t mean their armed resistance against Russian occupation is illegitimate. Why should Palestinian be any different, their occupation is far more brutal. The level of dehumanization they have been put under is insane. It’s absurd that its a legitimate political position in liberal countries to believe millions of people of a certain race somehow don’t have a right to fight their oppressors, shouldn’t have equal rights, and it is excusable to kill or punish them collectively as a group.

- you’re assuming the narrative is what makes men not adjust socially, rather than the reality that the male role was deconstructed and they are socially flailing, causing a rise in underground masculinity ideologies as a symptom of it - By this logic women should be less frustrated with guys, men are much less traditionally masculine and more feminine and liberal in western countries than ever before, the manosphere stuff is recent and a small minority. We should be seeing sensitive feminine egalitarian men having women throw themselves at them. But they don’t, and women just become more and more frustrated, because the reality is they want masculinity, not the sensitive gender neutral male ideology you promote even if they claim that’s what they want. - the reason why their is emphasis on male and female differences and “treat her like a child”, is because if men go into interactions as though she is man he is platonically interacting with, he will be flat and logical and it will go nowhere. On the other hand if he goes in with the perspective of himself as a male and her as a female, he will naturally create a polarity through things like teasing and flirting. Treating her as a child relates to not taking the interaction seriously and leading. An example of this would be how women purposefully try to test and provoke men to see how reactive they are, when if he doesn’t react to it or views it like a joke as though it’s a child doing it to him he passes the test. Men are also expected by women to lead and move things forward in basically every level, this wouldn’t be understood from a default perspective of viewing her the same way he’d view a platonic interaction with an adult man. - the reality is what you promote is actually the dominant ideology in secular mainstream western cultures, men are feminized, have an egalitarian perspective, and view what women say as vitally important. They weren’t learning manosphere stuff in schools or on tv. And it’s a disaster for them dating wise, they can’t create polarity, they don’t take the lead, they fall for false advice women give or become overly reactive when she tries to provoke them, then they end up watching themselves be used economically and emotionally while the “toxic guys” who do the opposite of what they were told is right get all the attention. Then they try to bring back masculinity through their neurotic perspective now informed by bitterness. Your analysis ignores this entire movement and acts as though the manosphere stuff is the source for all the issues, as opposed to what it actually is, a reaction to the mainstream failure and a fringe group at that. I doubt more than 5% of men take manosphere stuff seriously. .

Arab peace initiative was offered, and rejected by Israel.