hundreth

Yes, that's the point. This was not celebrated in Israel and his assassin was viewed as a radical extremist both domestically and abroad. It was a tragic and traumatic event in Israel. The way you talk about Israeli society's motives, there should have been celebrations and euphoria in the streets. I don't really care for all the buckets like "Zionists" and "Liberal Zionists" which have just become a meme and straw man to attack all of Israeli society. Many of us have been for a two state solution both before Oct 7 and after. For decades before, in fact. So I'm not sure what message has been reverted. Your interpretation is that there's only two Israelis, genocide or mow the lawn. Can't say I agree. It's a cynical world view that doesn't help in any way. Even if you're right, you dismiss this side and Palestinians are destroyed faster? What have you accomplished? We also don't care if you "support Israel." It is simply being practical. The only path forward that results in the least violence and tragedy is a two state solution. There are Jews & Israelis who support that. You can call their bluff and work with them. You might find that instead of being accused of being genocidal maniacs all the time, these parts of society would respond better and there may be enough built up pressure to effect some change. On the other hand, insisting on this cynical world view and continually advocating for endless "one-state" Palestinian resistance pushes away Jews and ultimately harms more Palestinians as the right becomes more powerful and continues their campaign. Fighting for a Palestinian state is worthwhile. Fighting to eliminate the evil Jewish ethno state as a matter of principle is a exercise in futility and delusion with tragic consequences.

Fair enough, but I don't support Likud. I also don't think the average Israeli is privy to all the manipulation going on by Bibi and those guys. They mostly vote Likud from a fear and security concern standpoint.

I'm sorry but that's just not true. I hate the term "Zionists" but I will play along. Two state solution has been a mainstream goal for both American Jews and Israelis for decades. The peace talks breaking down, Yitzhak Rabin's assassination and all related events throughout history are viewed as great tragedies both for American "zionists" and Israelis. I don't know what games politicians were playing behind the scenes but if you actually spoke to the people, they were vastly overwhelmingly in favor of two states. It is true that this has shifted in recent years, but what you said is a mischaracterization. Why don't you pull up the polls for Israelis over the decades instead of just the Palestinians? It was a good faith attempt. When Hamas was elected and shooting rockets into Israel, they were not quoting Ariel Sharon's chief aid or whatever conspiracy theories you dug up. So my point stands, any partial correction is viewed as offense and justification to attack. That said, I'd love to see that material. Not that it would change much, you're really cherry picking quotes from individuals and trying to map that to Ariel Sharon's intentions or the entire nation's. Ok, like I said. Where's the Israeli polls? Conveniently left out. If they show similar numbers would that change your conclusions? Of course not. Spoiler alert: They are basically the same numbers. I agree that Israel has done a lot to sabotage. But let's be clear when you say Israel here, you're talking about politicians. I don't know who these "Liberal Zionists" are that you're referring to. The leaders of the left in Israel? Or regular people? I'm in favor of pressuring Israel to negotiate the Arab peace initiative. You and I have already had that discussion. Most of us would like to see a two state solution. You are arguing that because Israeli leaders have sabotaged two state ideals (Palestinian leaders have too), then it must therefore be a zero sum game going forward. Ok, if you believe that, it is a guaranteed lose-lose. I think if you fought alongside the liberal jews you hate to pressure for two states, you would see a lot of support. But ultimately, it seems you'd rather see mutually assured destruction. You'd like to double down on this zero sum game, urge Palestinians to fight to the death. It will not end well.

Ok, but why do you revert to the same tired talking points that have little to do with the content I posted? Zionism this, Zionism that. I don't care about Zionism. Zionism already happened. Israel is here, it exists. The question is how to move forward. The illuminating part of the video I posted is that Palestinians themselves say they will never stop "resisting" and trying to reclaim ALL of the land. Jews & Israelis will never give up their state. It seems your quotes are designed to morally justify Palestinians endlessly fighting to "rid themselves" of the danger. Ok, so then you concede this is ultimately a zero sum game? Let's stop circling around it. If it's a zero sum game, then it is a war. That's what anti Israel voices have been arguing against for years, that it is not a war. You can't have it both ways. I'm starting to realize that far right Israelis and far left pro Palestinian progressives have a lot more in common than we previously thought. They both view the conflict as a zero sum game. The Israelis are more honest that this is a war. The Palestinian side hides behind historical quotes and moral rationalizations to re-label war as resistance.

I think this is important, and I don't know if these responses are cherry picked or not, but I suspect they are not. I believe that many Israelis fear exactly this. That any concession will be used to further strengthen the "resistance" and decimate any concept of Israel or a Jewish state in the region. It is analogous to the Gaza withdrawal. Israel made a concession, and then Hamas was elected and started sending rockets in. Now anti Israel voices will say its because the concessions weren't enough. Israel removed its civilians and military presence from the region, but because they didn't FULLY make Gaza autonomous overnight then it is justification to attack. This game can be played endlessly.

This was hard to watch.

Russia / Ukraine is not really a clean comp. Ukraine did nothing to Russia. They also pose no existential threat to Russia in any way. Russia's ambitions are completely resources driven. Some commentators have said that the threat to join NATO and isolate Russia has actually driven Russia to behave this way, and that is an explanation for how there are some threats to Russia but it is no where near the scale of Israel. We're comparing Russia to a nation the size of New Jersey which just experienced a terror attack the magnitude of ten 9/11s. Tell me which nation on earth would not respond in extreme measures to something like that? You can justify it all you want, but if your neighbors killed so many of your friends and family, you would become radicalized. We say the same for the Palestinians, they do what they do because of the hurt they feel. I think the world generally understands that the middle east is much less cut and dry than Russia / Ukraine. Ukraine has never declared war on Russia and lost, and then had a decades long subjugation and never ending conflict as a result.

Yeah, a de-militarized zone... which really matters when a militarized nation on that land declares war on you. At least try to make sense.

You aren't factoring the main issue which is geographical. The West Bank is strategically located on high ground which cuts through the center of Israel. If a militarized Palestine + other Arab nations were to attack Israel from this vantage it would be basically impossible to defend. Yes, it would be an existential threat. I'm not saying that alone is a reason not allow them to have said state, I'm just pointing out that your analysis was incomplete.

Yeah, I think the reasonable security concern is that much of what Palestine would be belongs on a high ground area cutting across the center of Israel which Israel literally would not be able to defend IF the Palestinians + the wider Arab world decided they wanted to. So perhaps the Palestinians wouldn't, but IF they did it would be the disastrous. That said, at this point it almost feels like Israel needs to accept that risk despite this reality and take a leap of faith. If that day ever comes, this would actually be a justified time for the U.S. to intervene. If Israel is actually under existential threat, they would be justified in using the full weight of their forces. The script would change.

I wish that was the overall consensus. It seems like that has shifted towards Palestine from the river to the sea. Both far left and far right are against the two state solution. The left accuses anyone in favor of two state to be "buying time for Palestinian ethnic cleansing." Meanwhile they push for a far less realistic and more violent one-state concept.

My understanding was this is why it wasn't seriously considered. If they are in good faith not insisting on it and being reasonable, then I'm for it. I'd have to read more into it. Lol, you're funny dude. Yes, because I'm under the impression they insist on right of return means that all two staters aren't serious. Genius level reasoning.

Starts at around 17 minutes, but this is an interesting discussion about Krystal Ball's contention that a Jewish state would always be a Jewish supremacist state. Prior to this, Norm Finkelstein challenges the use of the word Zionism as meaningless and encourages us not to use it because it has so many meanings to so many people, which I agree with. He then goes on to explain that a Jewish state is not inherently Jewish supremacist, though there is a majority population issue and open question. He also compares this to the UK being an Anglican state or Ireland being a Catholic state. He is more more nuanced on the issue than Krystal and many of you here.

The Arab peace initiative which insists on the right of return? Right of return = coded end of Israel Let's not beat around the bush. It's a poison pill. We could have leaders with courage to kickstart new peace initiatives directly with the Palestinians though in search of a two state solution. We need to stop this bullshit that the settlers have ended the chance for one. This is convenient for far leftists who hate the idea of Israel and want to see it destroyed under any circumstances. Israel has previously removed all settlers from Gaza. There are other solutions which don't require resettlement. There are many ways around that. Pushing against the two state solution only extends the conflict and makes it a toxic zero sum game, but leftists think they are doing something just and moral.

What a piece of shit this guy is....

This is a really good representation of how Israelis actually think IMO. This guy has actually interacted with and spoken to more Palestinians directly than 99% of people on the planet.

I agree with you. Israel is still operating under that same mentality and biting off way more than they can chew. For awhile it was war. Then it became a standstill. Neither side agrees to the terms of the other. They have an endless cycle of hurting another. Endless cycles of hate building. This is the tragic outcome.

Mischaracterization of history. Palestinians were not in the position to decide whether Jews came to the land or not. The British were. The Palestinians did not take this risk Lol. This is cartoonish. Jews came to the land to flee persecution, not as part of a political movement. They lived in relative peace. Later, a political movement shaped a new conflict, and a war ensued. Those are different circumstances. You can't say things would be the same before and after a literal war. Now you're trying to paint this picture like Palestinians themselves uniquely cared about welcoming Jews and in response they were destroyed. No. The British promised the Jews land there, there were negotiations for how to split it. Jews said yes to a minority of the land with no ill will towards Palestinians. Palestinians said no under any circumstances and launched a war. They lost. Jews have no unique hatred or resentment towards Palestinians. They just wanted a home and safe place to live. As for the Arab peace initiative, it is always the right of return that is the sticking point. I mean I'd agree with you that even without that the crazies in power in Israel today wouldn't agree, but I don't think that was always the case. I'd personally agree with you on 1967 borders and would be fine with it minus the right to return. Also certainly not everything Israel does is justified.

Yes, we also cannot know what would have happened. @Raze believes in this childish notion that the Palestinians or Arabs would never do anything to harm the Jews. They are perfectly innocent and do no wrong in every scenario. Jews, especially after WW2 will never take that risk. Nevermind that Arabs literally did ethnically cleanse the Jews from neighboring nations. But oh, that's okay because Jews from Europe did something bad Zionist blah blah. So then it doesn't count, right??

What does "simply stop occupying Palestine" mean? If it is no further expansion or greenlighting a two state solution, sure. But I don't think that's what it is. Also, Iran very openly declares they want to annihilate Israel. Those early Zionists weren't as centrally organized as they are today. You had different factions behaving in vastly different ways. As for Israel's demand for a Jewish state, this was part of a two state negotiation over at the time British land post WW2 where the most giant chunk of land was already given to Jordan. Within Palestine itself, the Jews had already agreed to less than half of the land, so then how were they demanding the majority of the country leave? That is just false. The Palestinians were only open to having 100% of the land, and so war broke out and they lost. What do you mean the two states I demand wants x,y,z? How do you know what I want? I believe there is a path towards two states, but its not commonly spoken about as an option. The cleanest idea IMO is to leave the settlers within areas designated as Palestinian land. There could be certain groups, both Palestinian and Jewish who live under each other's borders with dual citizenship and special status. The settlers could be part of that, but they would not be entitled to their own police force or security perimeter. They would live under Palestinian law. If they don't like it, they should move back to Israel proper. I think that is the simplest path forward.

That's because the Israelis believe that if the tables were turned they would be the ones ethnically cleansed. From the day the state was founded the goal was for the surrounding Arab states to invade and wipe out the Jews. Those same surrounding Arab states ethnically cleansed the Jews in their own nations, so this threat is not theoretical. Unfortunately it is a zero-sum game. Israelis and Jews in general hear "from the river to the sea" and take it literally. They are both fighting for survival, that is what is misunderstood. I'm not justifying genocide or the way this conflict has turned at all. I'm saying this "isn't that weird" perspective isn't really that weird at all. The British promised the Jews a state there, they negotiated for a two state with the other locals who had no sovereign nation there. They did not agree, a war broke out. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left believing the Arab states would roll in and destroy all the Jews. They failed to do so. They tried again and again and again, they failed to do so. Now we want to act like the Jews there are just being paranoid and becoming increasingly hostile for no reason. Decades of this conflict has hardened each side. Neither side wants a one state solution which is inclusive of both parties. That is a pipe dream. Since neither side will agree to leave, it has become a zero sum game and fight to the death. This is the sad reality of the situation. The only other outcome which could save it is a two state solution, but even the leftists themselves have abandoned it. They want a one state solution called "Palestine" where Palestinians are the majority and magically everyone lives happily ever after. They are completely delusional.

This is a sincere question, but what is the value in understanding God or expanding your understanding of God? The reason I ask is because from all of these teachings, including yours the gist is that we are this one big non dual no thing expression of the absolute. And so then the purpose of this dream is to experience duality. We learn that the illusion is a feature, not a bug. Now I'm sure there are technicalities worth bickering about but if the essential purpose is to experience duality as an expression of God, then this idea can help us understand that we are all one and live more conscious lives. This becomes the value of the understanding and spirituality. So what does taking this to an extreme and trying to fully grasp or comprehend do for us really? It feels counter productive almost. We're supposed to experience Maya.

This is intellectually dishonest and you know better. We are talking about people saying there should not be a Muslim state, we're not talking about dictator governments. This is what is said about the Jewish state. That a Jewish state should not exist. Because they've already done it and succeeded. These nations are essentially only for Muslims and most others have been pushed out. MAGA exists today. There are countless crimes and actions being perpetuated by the American government today. Are all Americans being lumped in with that? No. Yet an Israeli restaurant in New York is boycotted and vandalized which has nothing to do what's happening thousands of miles away. Just because they have a connection to Israel. This behavior is encouraged and advocated for. Liberal Zionists both fight for the existence of the Jewish state and protest for the removal of Bibi, the removal of the settlers, etc. There is no approval. That much of their effort is wasted also litigating their right to exist is on you. Most of us don't have millions or billions of dollars to be a real factor in this conflict short of speaking with our people and trying to reason with them so that voting behaviors change.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? I never disputed the history of Zionism. I am specifically talking about how most Jews use the terminology and what their beliefs are. They do not believe in colonialism. They believe in a Jewish state. You missed the point again. It is antisemitic to single out the Jewish state. It's no surprise you didn't use the counter example of it not being Islamophobic to be against a Muslim state. It sounds absurd to read the words because they've never been expressed even though its the same thing. Its not irrelevant. This is both a religious and territorial issue. You're actively trying to reduce it to only a territorial one even though there's a huge religious component to it. I don't know why anti Israel voices need to pretend that the nation of Israel belonging to Jews in that territory is not a huge aspect of mainstream Judaic thought. You also smuggled in the term supremacist. Would you use the same terminology for those Muslim nations you defend? Despite not currently having any apartheid like situation they effectively function as what you would consider Islamic supremacy using the same definitions. Once again, it sounds stupid when the coin is flipped. Also you continually ignore my entire point which is to speak of how present day Jews use and think about Zionism. The pioneering zionists do not represent us much the same way the pioneering imperialists who conquered and founded any nations don't represent their current ideals. I agree with you here. That's why my plea is to stay focused on the primary issue, which is Palestinian subjugation. What ends up happening is that loaded terms like Zionism are demonized and the core issue gets buried under the rubble. My entire point was that if the focus was on Palestinian suffering you wouldn't have millions of Jews feeling like they are being singled out and attacked for simply believing in a Jewish state.

But like I said, most Jews equate Zionism to the belief in a Jewish state. Not colonialism, not ethnic cleansing, not jewish superiority, not greater Israel, not any of this other stuff. So when the attack vector is "Zionism" it pushes away many Jews who would otherwise fight for human decency. I feel like there needs to be another word for the truly horrific aspects of Israeli policy outside of the jewish state identity. Because having a religious or ethnic identity is common around the world. So you end up with many Jews rightfully calling this out as anti-semitism because it is the Jewish state being singled out. Then you have this bullshit that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. They pretend that the land of Israel isn't integral to Jewish teachings or tradition. That because there's a tiny minority of Jews who believe that Jews shouldn't be in Israel now, but only after the messiah returns, that Judaism and the land of Israel aren't inherently linked. It's insane. Now I'm not saying that's a reason to take another people's land. And given the same scenario today, I don't think it would have happened or should have. But post WW2, it did happen. Now we want to make up bullshit and pretend the two don't go together. Western progressives at least need to come to terms with reality. Even the Palestinians have more of an understanding re: the Jewish connection to the land.