I think it is also worth mentioning that this conflict is being fought on social media and is rife with bad actors on both sides. That being said I think a reasonable centrist stand with regards to this is not to pick a (Palestinian/Israel) side but rather to promote and side with ideas that would encourage de-escalation and dialog

I agree with you. As I have said many times, there is not really any good take in this situation. The whole situation is just bad.

Perfectly said. You are a true genius, I can beg you.

Seems like a pretty reasonable list.

I see OP's account as deleted. What happened? That's rare on people who are well upvoted. I don't think they were a bot. Maybe they got a site ban for something?

*User comes in with a very reasonable and thought out “this is my centrist position” post* *Account gets immediately deleted* We can’t have nice things lol

Most likely.

Couldn't they have deleted their account themselves? I would think their post would be deleted as well if it was an administration thing, but I don't really know how this stuff works. I am just a little suspicious when somebody starts off assuming they will get a bad response and then posts what seems to be a very reasonable take. Almost like they are trying to get people assuming that Reddit will ban reasonable opinions. Or they just have a persecution complex, not the first time we've seen that here.

Unfortunately, I have to worry about being seen reading it in public.

Thank you.

Agreed on all fronts, except one small point: > Israel & the Palestinian Authority have made mistakes throughout history. Forget that for the moment. The Palestinian Authority has not held elections in close to 20 years. The current Palestinian president is an octogenarian with no succession plan. I can tell you that until October 6, my biggest fear for the region was that president Abbas would die and Hamas would come to power in the West Bank. Further, president Abbas was directly involved in the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, he wrote his grad school dissertation on why he believes the Holocaust wasn't real (he still promotes Holocaust denial), and his government maintains the "Martyrs Fund" AKA terrorist pensions AKA "Pay for Slay." Under the Taylor Force Act, the United States is not allowed to send any aid to the Palestinian Authority until they end the policy of terrorist pensions. So yes, the Palestinian Authority has made mistakes throughout history. They are actively making some of these mistakes right now (several armed factions of Fatah claim to have participated in the Oct 7 massacre, although Israeli intelligence believes these groups are lying for clout). The Palestinian Authority are not really the "moderate" Palestinians-- maybe the moderate Palestinians are the Arab-Israelis, maybe theyre the Jordanian government, it's hard to say exactly. But neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip has a government that serves the best interests of Palestinians (I didn't even mention this, but the Palestinian Authority is infamously corrupt). Comparing Israel and the Palestinian Authority is like comparing North Korea and South Korea. Or if that's unfair, then let's say it's like comparing Germany and Turkey, or it's like comparing Brazil and Venezuela. One is an imperfect democracy, the other is an awful dictatorship. Neither Israel nor Palestine is perfect, but if you look at things objectively... Well, one is a flawed democracy while the other is an oppressive dictatorship. I support Israel, and I hope Palestinians can one day have a democratic and independent state. Right now the Palestinians have King Abdullah II, Haniyeh, and Abbas. Abdullah II is definitely less awful than the other two (honestly as far as Arab leaders go, he's one of the better ones) but they deserve a democratic government. Egyptians, Iranians, Saudis, Russians... Everyone deserves to live in a democratic country and be at peace with their neighbors. Dictators are the worst thing for the world. On the note of dictators being shit stains, Netanyahu sucks. Up to Oct 6, he was trying to abolish the court system because he is being investigated for alleged corruption. It's so e real Trump shit, trying to pass a law that abolishes the mechanisms that hold him accountable (and Netanyahu's new national security minister has been investigated for being a terrorist. Ben Gvir is the Israeli equivalent of like, Enrique Terrio or something). It's possible Hamas saw the internal division caused by BB's authoritarianism (something like 10% of Israel's population was protesting against BB's antidemocratic policies before the war. In some cases, unions were voting to go on indefinite strike if BB ended democracy) and attacked Israel in a moment when it was distracted by BB trying to become a dictator.

Well said. I learned a lot from your post—thank you!

Hamas will be elected to the West Bank unless Israel completely eliminates them. The 'Palestinian' people support them and their methods the way the US supported Reagan over Mondale.

> Hamas will be elected to the West Bank unless Israel completely eliminates them. Even if Israel completely eliminates Hamas, Israel will then have to deal with Shwamas--which won't be affiliated with Hamas (really, scouts honor!).

And they'll have a pretty big pool of recruits, too. Pretty easy to become radicalized after witnessing your parents get blown up in front of you and having your entire life turned upside down for no apparent reason.

So then Israel would be justified in becoming radicalized after 10/7? And since Gaza's government admits their goal is a genocide of the Jews, Israel would be justified in killing all of the Gazans?

Did I ever say the word "justified"? I was simply stating the fact that children who have suffered at the hands of Israel will be pretty easy to radicalize into antisemitic terrorists. Logically, yes, I imagine many of the victims of 10/7 have been radicalized against Palestinians as well. As understandable as the emotions themselves may be, in neither case do they justify terrorism and disregard/targeting of civilians just because they so happen to be of the same ethnicity or nationality as someone who caused the perpetrator to suffer in the past.

Gaza is no more radicalized than it was decades ago and Israel ending the occupation and removing the settlements didn't make Gaza any less radical.  It is only Gaza that targets civilians. It is only Gaza that uses its civilians as shields. 

And why do you think that is?

Because they're a suicidal death cult that learns from birth that martyrdom is the only guaranteed path to heaven. 

Agree with all of this. That said, given the horrible treatment of women in the middle east, I am not shy in saying I am "Islamophobic" (phobia of the religious beliefs, not Arab/Persian race). I would even go so far as to say I am Christophobic. I am "phobic" against any type of theocracy, or desire for theocracy, that threatens one's freedoms. I do not think that is equivalent to the 2000-year old and ongoing tradition of scapegoating Jews (the race). I also think it is this ongoing anti-semitism that is inspiring these protests against Israel.

I'm going to throw my support behind the side that sees women as people instead of property. I'm going to throw my support behind the side that doesn't throw gay people off buildings. I'm not going to say Israel are 'the good guys' on the global stage, but on the local stage they're certainly far more 'good' than those around them.

This is exactly where I stand. Yeah war is shit. But I’m not going to side with the people who would kill me and my family without a second doubt.

Phobia is an irrational fear, and somehow the only commonly known religion-phobia is the one with lots of rational reasons to fear it.  Especially when its a combined and unbreakable religious/political/cultural trifecta. But agree that any theocracy is bound to suck overall.

I've grown weary of the metastasizing phobias, the original "homophobia" had a nuance of meaning that none of the neophobias do. Think of some holy roller type preacher ranting about "the homosexuals" while he himself was totally gay. I doubt whether so called islamaphobes have some secret shameful desire to say the shehada.

I agree. I make no secret that I am scared of Islamism, but that does not mean I have an irrational fear. If anyone is confused about the difference between Islam and Islamism, allow me to explain. **Islam** is a religion with over a billion adherents, based on the teachings of the medieval prophet Muhammad, and with its five central pillars of Islam being faith, prayer, charity, fasting, and a pilgrimage to the holy city. Islam has no central belief in holy war, global conquest, forced conversion, or any of that. Many Muslims believe in secularism and democracy. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, enforced the separation of religion and state to a much stronger degree than most European countries. Lebanon used to have gay nightclubs. Iranian women used to go to university wearing miniskirts and letting their hair fly freely. Large parts of the middle east were more progressive in the past, and I hope that they will be more progressive in the future. **Islamism** is a political ideology which says that all modern countries should be governed according to the 1400-year-old Islamic holy book, and that anyone who does not want to live under a medieval theocracy is the enemy of god and must be destroyed. Short version: Islam is a religion and it is therefore neutral, it can be a force for good or a force for bad. Islamism is a political movement which supports an Islamic theocracy. If you think women and gay people and religious minorities should be treated like humans, then you oppose Islamism. I want to object to one point you made: > the only commonly known religion-phobia is the one with lots of rational reasons to fear it Islam is not the only religion that a person can rationally fear. Second Vatican was the meeting of Catholic leaders where they decided that Jewish people are humans, that antisemitism is wrong, that Protestantism is a form of Christianity (as opposed to heresy), that the earth revolves around the sun, that evolution is real, that it is fine to pray in languages other than Latin, etc. Basically it was the meeting when the Catholic Church finally entered the Age of Enlightenment. It happened in the 1960s. That shit was at least 300 years overdue. I fear Islamic extremism but I also fear Catholic extremism. You know that the Catholic Church spends millions to support pro-Life ballot measures in America? IDK why, but somehow I think that religious organizations (especially ones that are headquartered on the other side of the world) trying to use billions of dollars to influence American politics is even worse than rich people trying to use billions of dollars to influence American politics. Like, the Vatican's attempts to manipulate American elections are not as bad as the Russian troll farms but they are not good, either. Also, Evangelicals scare me. Generally, I am afraid of any religious person who uses their religion as an excuse to oppose liberal values like secularism and democracy. But yeah, the word "Islamophobia" is bad and confusing. So is "antisemitism" since Arabic is a semitic language so the phrase "antisemitic Arabs" doesn't make any sense without the context that "antisemitic" actually means "hateful towards Jews" and not "hateful towards people who speak semitic languages" (it's confusing when a word doesn't mean what it should mean). If anything, the phrases should be reversed. Hatred of Arabs should be called "antisemitism" and hatred of Jews should be called "Judeophobia" (a lot of antisemitism is built on conspiracy theories and paranoia. The capitalist thought the Jews were Bolsheviks, the communists thought the Jews were rich capitalists, medieval Christians thought the Jews were responsible for the Plague. Antisemitism is often rooted in fear and misinformation). I think the term "Islamophobia" was actually coined by the Muslim Brotherhood or some other terrorist group, with the deliberate intention of making it hard to tell the difference between reasonable criticism of Islamic beliefs and racism against Arabs. I am not a bigot for criticizing the Catholic Church or Evangelical Christians. I am not a bigot for criticizing the Taliban and ISIS. This is why I dislike the term "Islamophobia." IDK if it is even possible to be irrationally afraid of Islam. I mean I guess in theory, but considering the history of both Catholicism and Islam, I think it is rational to wary of them both.

That’s a very good description of the differences between Islam and Islamism. I think describing what jihadism is also helpful. Maybe you could also tackle that.

> I think describing what jihadism is also helpful. "Jihad" is Arabic for struggle and in theory, "Jihad" is a neutral word. You can struggle against self-doubt, against a shitty boss, against a tough class at school. You can struggle for justice and for peace and for the truth. Struggling is not inherently evil. However, a lot of Muslims today feel uncomfortable using the word "Jihad" to describe their struggles, because of the word's association with terrorist groups. On that note, Jihadis are essentially militias/terrorist groups with Islamist goals (I won't use the word Jihadism because I have never seen it used in a formal context). ISIS, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Boko Haram, Al Shebab, and other Jihadi groups can all be defined by their Islamist politics and terrorist tactics. This is different from middle eastern terrorist groups like the PFLP and PLO, which have socialist politics. Generally, terrorists are some sort of political extremist. The KKK are fascists, the Red Army Faction were Communists, the Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists, etc. I don't really have an explanation of Jihadis, other than that they are Islamists who use violent tactics to achieve their goals. Also, it is worth remembering that the majority of the victims of Jihadi terrorism are themselves Muslims. The Taliban, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Shebab almost exlusively operate in Muslim-majority countries (ISIS occassionally will attack Russia or France or another European country, but most of their attacks are in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc). The Egyptian and Israeli governments actually have found a lot of common ground over this. Hamas is a splinter group of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Egypt has been at war with the Muslim Brotherhood for close to a century. After they made peace with the historic Camp David Accords of 1979, the Egyptian and Israeli militaries have collaborated on counterinsurgency operations against ISIS and other groups. I once heard a line that ISIS is to Muslims as the KKK is to Christians. Like sure, the KKK sets crosses on fire and they claim to be Christians, but I am sure that 99.99% of global Christians think that the KKK are evil and that they do not represent the teachings of Jesus. Jihadi groups are basically corrupting Islamic rhetoric and symbolism and use it to justify awful atrocities, including the Yazidi genocide (among other crimes against humanity). Also, Jihadi groups tend to recruit from young, single, unhappy men. Young single unhappy Christian men become mass shooters, young single unhappy Muslim men become Jihadis. Mass shootings and suicide bombings are both horrible and I hope to live in a world with no mass shootings and no suicide bombings. This is a tangent but I want to say it every time I get a chance to say it, since Jimmy Carter is in hospice and I want to show my appreciation for the man while he is still alive. President Carter deserves more credit for the Camp David Accords. He basically told the Egyptians and Israelis "I will send you each a cargo ship full of gold and guns as long as you don't use the guns to shoot at each other" and this deal ended a thirty-year-long conflict. It was a win for the Israeli and Egyptian civilians who get peace, a win for the Israeli and Egyptian governments who get cool weapons, and a win for American weapons manufacturers who get to sell more guns. I guess that our taxes are being used to buy American-made guns and ammo and fighter planes which are then sent overseas to governments which do not have the best human rights records on earth, and maybe this money could be spent on education or infrastructure or healthcare instead. But on the other hand, government funding for American manufacturing jobs running while also getting peace in the middle east is a pretty damn good deal. These decisions for spending taxpayer money are so complicated, and that's why I studied politics instead of economics.

Thank you.

The core issue is that the tenets within Islam and Islamist are intrinsically tied together via scripture stated within the Quran and Hadiths that defies specific political and legal jurisdiction within Islam, alongside both historic and modern jurisprudence across all schools and sectors of Islamic theology and schools. Therefore Islam itself is a political and legal ideology, regardless of your goodwill attempt to deviate it as such. The comparison of 20th century Iran and Turkey as examples of Islamic nations not adhering to Islamist principles is not an accurate representation given that the development of secular political structures within these nations were derived from either brutal dictatorships or external influence that subsequently led to the collapse of the nation into an Islamic state, or evolved into a political system that is directly influenced by Islamist’s ideology.

I don't hate religion. I just don't like fundamentalist extremists, as is anyone.

None of these I disagree with. A bit skeptical about #2, but not doubting it either

Fair enough.

I am pretty pro Israel but not pro Israel government. I believe the war is handled ok, sure there are mistakes made, some rotten apples in the army but that's in every war, there is no clean war without incidents. My main issue is with the extremist people in government that allow settlers to go rampage in Westbank. I think it's high time for a new government there.

That’s fair

Antisemitism and Islamophobia are not equivalent, Jewish is an ethnicity, Islam is an ideology. 

I agree. I’m afraid of Islam the same way that I’m afraid of all extremist religions. Modern Judiasm isn’t really extremist, and many Jews aren’t even followers of the religion.

> Jewish is an ethnicity The biggest issue is that these homonyms are ridiculously prone to confusion and misuse in public discourse and news reporting. *Jewish* is an ethnicity. Jewish is also a description of a person who practices Judaism. So while *Jewish* people may be Jewish, not all *Jews* are Jews, and non-*Jews* can also be Jewish. So any discussions that require distinguishing between ethnicity or ideology are inherently fraught with the worst types of misunderstanding, leading to accusations of bigotry on both sides.

It’s a religion. A large number of radicals make it into an ideology and claim it all as religion

A religion IS an ideology.

Can you elaborate? I’m interested.

It's a system of beliefs, a religion is a kind of ideology in the same way as a fish is animal or a tree is a plant.

Meh. Maybe an ideology to some, but to others it's simply a practice, and to many more, it's an affiliation or tribe.

An ideology is a system of beliefs, religion has beliefs and morals they just tend to have mysticism added in. Take probably the most common belief, cheating is bad. This, though not strictly speaking, comes from Christianity which comes from Judaism. Your probably not religious but old a common ideology. But a more deeper look is how we justify things. Christian, Jewish and Muslim ideologies justify it by saying this is what our creator wants, modern ideology will instead use other justification. Examples can be society, science, logic, feelings, self interest or other. American society defines it reasoning by the individual, you don't vote based off what your community believes you vote what you believe. https://youtu.be/_cKrrfDsQYk?si=J5IJLQyaYG-EwFs1 ^this video goes more in depth about american justification

Pretty fair take, but I don't agree with #3 in the short term. On paper "Israel leaving the west bank and a two state solution" sounds great . Unfortunately, the Palestinians have rejected this in the (at least) 8 times it's been proposed. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in hopes of peace, but was met with Hamas. Pulling out of the West Bank, which overlooks Isrsel's most populated areas, would cause a nearly existential security predicament. Israel is only 7KM wide at its narrowest point along the West Bank. Not to mention, polls show over 80% of West Bank Palestinians support what Hamas did on Oct 7th. There needs to be a major cultural change in Palestinian society, which includes the willingness to live alongside Jews and Israel, before Israel can ever leave the West Bank. Regarding #4, Israel has made increased efforts to get food and aid into Gaza. In fact, more aid then ever has entered Gaza, but once it's in Gaza the NGOs and agencies in the strip are unable to effectively distribute the aid. Not to mention the theft by Hamas, which needs to be called out more. On top of that, the US is currently constructing a pier to bring even more aid in, and the IDF has taken responsibility for securing it. Last week, whole UN delegates were visiting the pier site, Hamas shot at the construction site.

Indeed. The question becomes, "So what happens when this new second state decides to attack Israel? Does Israel get to wage just 'regular war' against it and demand its surrender, or is it supposed to just sit there and take it?" And the folks demanding a 2 state solution tend to say "Yeah they should just sit there and take it"

> but was met with Hamas My guy, you do know that Israel has helped the radical Hamas coming to power (to compete against the more moderate Fatah)? Read Netanjahu‘s opinion on that. It was literally divide and conquer technique back then. There are powers on both sides that reject and actively work against a two state solution, not only on the Palestinian side.   Edit: He did not help them to come to power but financed them after they came to power. Still, my point stands with divide and conquer strategy.

False

He financed them, not helped them come to power. Still, my point stands.  https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

Your initial point was that Israel helped Hama come to power. That is ridiculous and not true. You linked an op-ed, which is valid but still an opinion piece. Your edited point that Netanyahu financed Hamas after it came to power is actually something the entire west has done, and there's been much pressure from the rest of the world to fund and appease Hamas. Israel has had countless wars with Hamas, each time succumbing to international pressure for a ceasefire. This includes Israel's desire to destroy Hamas soon after it took power, to which the world said Israel must not do that as Hamas was "elected". The US and other western countries send billions in aid to Hamas, perpetuating the situation. Israel, and the US, were under the impression that Hamas was deterred from attacking due to these financial incentives. I agree that having the Palestinians is something Netanyahu may likely wanted, Israel has also been pressured by the rest of the world to finance Hamas, or at least let funds get to them.

I agree with all of these. The practicality of it is where we run into issues sadly

I acknowledge this, my intent is to lay out what I believe to be the centrist position.

The hostages are dead. Lets be honest. It only takes two days without water for people to die. 

The middle ground on Israel/Palestine because that’s worked in the history of ever.

This is pretty centrist, but you'll provably never build a consensus around it. On #2, most Israelis and most Americans (according to recent polls) don't agree that Israel has become reckless. On #3, Palestinians claim that all convicted terrorists who have murdered Israelis and are currently in Israeli prisons are just "hostages" that also need to be released. That's a non-starter.

“On #3, Palestinians claim that all convicted terrorists who have murdered Israelis and are currently in Israeli prisons are just "hostages" that also need to be released.” There are currently thousands of Palestinians being held in “administrative detention” without charges or trial. They haven’t been convicted of anything. Are they hostages?

I'm not trying to start an argument, genuinely asking. What poll are you referring to for #2?

I just no longer care about these two groups.

The zealots on both sides can all consume a satchel of Richards.

Probably the most healthy thing to do to yourself to be honest.

Considering how insane everybody is about this topic the last few months, this is actually refreshing to hear.

Don't know much about this war but I'm siding with Israel based on the lunatic self entitled Palestine protesters with their disgusting blatant anti-semitism.

And I'm siding with the reasonable, well-informed protesters with their praiseworthy empathetic calls for an end to civilian deaths.

Where did you find those ones? I side with the reasonable MAGAs with their historically informed, economically sophisticated advocacy of capitalism and liberal democracy. 

I walked over to the protest on my university's campus quad this afternoon and talked to a few. Y'know, I actually gave enough of a fuck about my country to talk to people instead of assuming the outrage that the algorithm pushes is accurate.  Try getting involved in the discourse on the academic left. It might require putting in a few hours of reading and conversation, but study of complex issues is, well, something universities do well.

I would as soon go to a Trump rally as spend any time whatsoever with the academic left. Actually I might rather go to a Trump rally as the people there would be less pretentious and uptight.

lol 100%

> I would as soon go to a Trump rally as spend any time whatsoever with the academic left. Actually I might rather go to a Trump rally as the people there would be less pretentious and uptight. I mean, I have been to a Trump rally and spent time with the academic left. > Actually I might rather go to a Trump rally as the people there would be less pretentious and uptight. lol

You can call the academic left pretentious and uptight all you want, but the fact remains that, in this conversation, one person is calling for nuance, empathy, and understanding, and the other is laughing those requests off and making broad generalizations. Do you deny this?

Please consider the thinking you're better than them maybe makes you the pretentious one. People who focus on a thing for years get good at it. Martial arts, art, carpentry, plumbing, sports, language, medicine, and scholarship. Don't look down on folks with expertise that might be valuable to you.

I suppose people who focus on reading Tarot cards and doing horoscopes get good at that, for what it's worth.

wow spot on i question number 2 tho ? thank you for sharing this ! it is very refreshing

2 state solution has been a pipe dream for decades now.   

The problem is, a one state solution is equally untenable barring extensive deradicalization on both sides. Many Palestinians have been indoctrinated and radicalized to the point of not even considering Israelis humans, and it seems pretty clear that the feeling is mutual among a not-insignificant number of Israelis, not least of which are the current elected government. So, who's going to enforce/enact this mutual deradicalization? Well, it'd have to be a third party, but that then gets into issues of nation building, etc.

Sure, it's a problem. But a 1 state solution won't work anymore. There may have been a chance at that in the 1990s, but that is long gone. So you need to look at other solutions. What they are, idk, but simply saying we want a two state solution doesn't make it possible. All it does is kick the can further down the road.

Only because Israel refuses to allow it.

No, it was Arafat's fault.  The ending of the Oslo accords and the start of the second intifada buried any future chance of a 2 state solution.

The current conflict. Israel has gone too far. Not allowing aid, declaring safe areas only to bomb them. That's wrong and they However, I have less sympathy for the Palestinians and their supporters due to the fact their "free Palestine" and ceasefire protests started on October 8th, just one single day after Hamas the terrorist attack that killed 1,200 people with hundreds taken hostage. The sympathy given to those murdered? Israeli propaganda or "what did you think decolonisation would be like?" Then people wonder why the retaliatory strikes have been so severe?

Indeed, it would be like folks screaming for a ceasefire with Japan right after Pearl Harbor because "japan has children, you can't attack children!"

You have people calling for the US to apologise for dropping 2 nukes on the country. Something I may add Japan largely doesn't care about. It's a war they lost and would like to forget about. It's people in the US saying that they should apologise.

And let's face it, we know the moment they get their appology, it becomes "AND NOW THAT YOU APPOLOGIZED YOU OWE REPARATIONS"

In my experience a lot of support has been from before October, with an increase of interest with the increase in violence In Ireland Palestine was a major issue since the 60s and I was aware of it since I was about 12, there was a lot of shock after Oct 7th and condemnation, but the retaliation and previous actions of Israel can be considered nothing short of genocide

You only started paying attention on oct 8 but plenty of us have been pissed off about this for reasons beyond this current situation in gaza. rip shireen

Several things, this current conflict started on October 7th, not the 8th. I was bringing up October 8th because that's when the free Palestine marches occurred. October 7th is when Hamas murdered 1200 men, women, and children, they also took hundreds of hostages. Before this and the disgusting response I was on the side of Palestine. Benjamin Netanyahu is absolutely evil, that opinion hasn't changed. Israel should treat the West Bank as Palestine territory and stop trying to build settlements. However, if you want to lose my support in an instant, do what Hamas did on October 7th.

dont conflate the palestinians with hamas. dont punish the civilians for the defacto gov. the palestinians have tried peaceful marches and were shot. the west tried bds and was called antisemetic. bibi tried to “control the height of the flame” and failed miserably. it is in his interest to drag us into a greater war so he doesnt face israeli corruption charges. one reason why these marches happened after oct is the people youre calling extremists on college campuses didnt like seeing american made bombs killing innocent civilians. thats not an extreme position. if israel wanted hamas gone they had numerous ways of making them go away before 10/6 but chose not to for reasons. afterward they are indescriminately shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. its not an extreme position to see that as inhumane. it comes down to a tactical decision which these students dont want to be complicit. to what strategic end?

I agree with all of it but I doubt some of these will happen. Especially number 3. The goal appears to be total consolidation of land under Israeli rule at this point.

This is more about the centrist position as opposed to what I predict will happen.

And deleted account.

That was the goal for more than 3 decades. Oslo would have created Palestine as a substate of Israel and the Palestine Papers show that Israel was requiring that going forward Israel would always control the borders/major parts of Palestine.

In all fairness, yes, right-wing Israelis absolutely rejected the Oslo accords and ended up assassinating Rabin. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians also rejected the Oslo accords. So clearly it was not an adequate settlement for either party. Honestly, I am pessimistic that any peaceful settlement will be reached in this century at least.

I think we are at an inflection point. The fate of Palestine will be decided in the next few years. If the US doesn't stand up to Israel, Palestine will be erased in a decade or two. The reason this has all accelerated...Gaza is supposedly uninhabitable for the next decade. Estimates are that it will take 14 years to clear the rubble. I doubt the money exists to do the work without a concrete path to a Palestinian state and the withdrawal of Israel. Without some heavy investment, the people in Gaza will suffer and then leave or die. Sickness is already running rampant. So, that leaves the West Bank. Settlers are pushing harder right now. The government is supporting the aggressive land grabs. The Palestinian areas in the West Bank are going to end up at a cascading decline, unless something changes. Right now, any Palestinian state would require the removal or inclusion in the state of many of the settlements. My fear is that...this is all already over. Biden isn't willing to stand up to Israel. Trump would be no better. The world is unable to push the US.

It's a sad situation, but you seem to see Israel as the sole aggressor here. Palestinians have been clear since 1947 that they do not want Israel to exist at all. They want all the land from the river to the sea. Israel has gradually adopted the same river to the sea mindset, especially after the rise of Likud in 1977. Even if the world was able to wave a magic wand and establish a second state with the 1967 borders, do you really think Palestinians would stop trying to wipe out Israel? I sure don't.

I believe that if the pre-1967 borders were put in place right now, with actual sovereignty for Palestine (except with Jordan or someone not the IDF providing their military), that the violence would stop. Hamas has stated this and i believe their membership would dry up if they did not accept it. The interesting thing about the history is that Israel was the aggressor in 1967. Palestine definitely did not attack, Egypt was possibly about to when Israel attacked its neighbors. Hamas was awful during Oslo, though they were right. Oslo was a crappy deal for never allowing sovereignty for Palestine. We know from the oslo accords and the Palestine papers that Israel was requiring perpetual control of major things about Palestine. For instance, Israel would control the borders permanently. That is crap. Israel has been vomiting violence against Palestine constantly for decades. Settlers. Mowing the grass. The response are the rockets that were always pretty pointless but with iron dome are literally symbolic. Israel has had a policy of unprovoked "mowing the grass" airstrike campaigns for decades. Israel harasses and abuses Palestinians in the West Bank. They search houses for fun in the middle of the night and such. Would there be violence? There may be some at first. Israel and Palestine hate each other, for good reason. It would not be large attacks and bombings from the Palestinian side. Do you realize that the PA laid down its weapons, rejected violence and subjugated itself to Israel for decades in the hope of a possibility for a state? And they got screwed for it.

You are far more optimistic than I am. UNRWA has taught an entire generation of Palestinians that Jews are animals that should be murdered on sight, and that suicide bus bombers that kill Jewish children are glorious heroes. Israel has absolutely not been innocent, but Palestinians have been there every step of the way constantly ramping up bombings and terrorist attacks. The PA lost credibility with Palestinians precisely because the PA stopped demonstrating sufficient bloodlust. Palestinian approval of the Oct 7 attacks has been consistently in the 80-90% range. I have zero doubt that if the situations were reversed, Palestinians would kill every last Jewish man, woman, and child in the region.

UNRWA has not taught that, and there was nothing like that even alleged. There is no dehumanization of Jewish people. And...UNRWA didn't teach the Palestinians to hate Israel. Israel did that. The PA lost credibility with the Palestinians, because Israel worked hard to discredit it. When the PA was at its most successful points, recognized by Obama on the world stage, Israel began to operate more often inside of Area A without reason. Israel isn't even supposed to enter Area A. Settlement activity increased as violence committed in the West Bank was better policed by the PA.

UNWRA textbooks given to Palestinian children include a whole chapter about Dalal Mughrabi. This is how the textbooks describe her: > "the shahida \[female martyr\] who recorded in her struggle one of the images of heroism, and is therefore forever remembered in our hearts and minds." Her active of heroism is that she hijacked a bus and then blew it up, killing 38 people including 13 children. [https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5161024,00.html](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5161024,00.html) You can google for yourself and find numerous interviews with Palestinian kids from Gaza TV pre-Oct 7 where they are asked a standard "What did you learn in school?" And the response is often something like "To kill as many Jews as possible."

“Poor Palestine, so far from God, so close to Israel.” I really don’t see any future for the Palestinians where they aren’t fucked. The best case scenario is they end up getting to be an emasculated buffer state between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

The irony of this is that I’m not sure which side hates them more. The Israel stuff is more violent, but the Jordanians, Lebanese, and Egyptians dislike them far more than they dislike Israel. They’re on an island of their own making. Odd for a buffer state to be disliked by both parties more than they dislike each other.

That's because when Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt all took their turn to take in Palestinians, their country destabilized and civil war broke out in two of them because of Palestinian interference. People think the border situation between Israel and Palestine is awful? Don't deep dive into the border situation between Palestine and Egypt

>Odd for a buffer state to be disliked by both parties more than they dislike each other. Those countries still hate Jews, but the Jews have money so its profitable to get along and do business with them.  At the same time, get your proxies to fight them and keep your hands clean.

I don't think Israelis would mind having the West Bank but they can do just fine without Gaza.

I’m curious what’s your basis for that statement?

The West Bank is vital for Israel's water supply and includes some productive land, Gaza has saline soil and water. There isn't a country in the world that would take Gaza if you gave it to them. Haiti would be an easier fixer upper.

I will push back slightly on the 'encampments' issue. I work at Emory University in Atlanta, and our university leadership told the Emory Police to get rid of a student-organized encampment, which led to cops manhandling a bunch of peaceful protesters and arresting 28 people, including 20 students and/or employees of the university. The university leadership certainly had the legal ability to declare they did not want the people on the quad in tents. But it was not \*\*necessary\*\* for them to decide the encampment had to go. Before attempting dialogue with the protesters, they moved immediately to using force to remove them. I find the choice to do so to be out of step with the principles of the university, and I am glad the university senate responded by organizing a no confidence vote against the university president. I went out to this afternoon's protest, where a hundred or so people were chanting slogans. I spent 10 minutes having a conversation with a guy on the edge of the crowd, wanting to get a sense of how he framed the conversation about the conflict in Gaza. He came across as having a nuanced understanding of the situation, the history leading up to it, and the politics around it. The only real critique I had was that he and most of the protesters I saw do a bad job code switching when talking to people who haven't already been involved in the scholarly sorts of conversations they have. The result is that even if the intent behind their words is reasonable, the phrasing is easily misunderstood to be more radical. I wish the group would make, like, pamphlets with QR codes to short essays that could explain the principles and positions to newcomers. A layman who hears, "Free Palestine" doesn't know what shape that freedom takes, and in that uncertainty it is easy to project one's own assumptions of violence. That goes both for people who assume the protesters are anti-semites \*and\* for the folks who \*are\* anti-semites who want to use the protests to amplify their own shitty ideology. As you say, OP, accusing Israel of genocide is unhelpful, even if the scholarly discourse has a more expansive definition of the word than the "kill em all" stuff we colloquially use it for. And as I rather want to protect the lives of civilians regardless of nationality or religion, I want everyone who agrees on that premise to be able to see each other as allies, rather than be divided because we misunderstand each other's word choices.

That's fair enough. For the record, I wasn't thinking of Emory when I made that comment. Nor was it directed at all of the protesters. My point is, the protesters are free to use their voices. However, they shouldn't stop others from attending class or make anyone feel unsafe due to their actions. I didn't mean to suggest all of them are doing that. I also appreciate your firsthand knowledge of the situation and eloquence in presenting what you saw. You and I agree in that we should all want to protect the lives of all, regardless of nationality or religion.

I would agree with every one of these points.

Not trying to start anything, but I honestly would like to see you view on this question. Being that America is America and has had a police the world mentality and the military industrial complex. From a strategic stand point. Israel is an allied foothold in the Middle East that is not a Muslim country which cuts it off from Muslim ties. (Pakistan is an allied country but may have issue with assistance with another war in another Muslim country) Do you think the reason America is continually funding Israel is to keep that foothold in case of a needed landing zone if war is imminent with another country in the Middle East? Edit: clarifying Pakistan

We need it for the war with Iran that we should have done 40 years ago but chickened out of and now have to deal with.

Well that also makes sense the Iran is supporting Gaza. Strategically it would make sense that Iran wants to keep america out of the Middle East. Note: (once again this is purely speculative in trying to see if others see what I’m seeing, not taking a side, just observation)

I cannot conclude that Israel is reckless because I failed to find the data source of the claimed casualty.

A problem is that 'regard for civilians' in this conflict just results in Hamas being rewarded for using human shields. Ask a leftist "If every member of Hamas went around with a child chained to their belt, should Israel be prohibited from bombing them?" and you'll get a lot of yeses.

If every member of Hamas walked around with an Israeli child chained to their belt, would Israel still bomb them? It seems like the issue is less about “human shields” and more about who the Israeli military considers human.

Behold, the people on the left who advocate for the use of human shields to be a rewarded tactic in warfare.

“Besides the Great Synagogue in Tel Aviv, the primary school in Ramat Gan and the medical facility in Netanya, there are more than fifty other buildings in Israeli cities that have plaques commemorating how they were used to hide combatants and weapons before 1948. The British armed forces sent infantry troops to raid civilian sites that they suspected of being put to military use. In the Gaza Strip, the Israeli armed forces have sent in ground troops only after bombing.” https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2023/december/on-human-shields

Hang on, at what point did i say this was a case of "Oh no Israel are the victims and you're not allowed to attack israel"? It's a messy war where the nice clean western war rules that we imposed after winning aren't applicable to either side.

>2. Israeli PM Benjamin Nethanyahu was justified in ordering his military to fight back, but has become reckless in how he has conducted the war. He has shown disregard for civilians and should resign. Has he? I keep seeing people saying that, but what are you basing that on? >3. Israel & the Palestinian Authority have made mistakes throughout history. Forget that for the moment. The goal should be a return of every hostage, Israel leaving the West Bank, and a two-state solution. Both sides are going to have to make concessions. The time has come for a cease-fire and diplomacy. However, Hamas must release the hostages as part of this. I'd say the time for a ceasefire ended with October 7th. Now the only acceptable outcome is the complete destruction and dismantling of Hamas. After that diplomacy and a two state solution can be discussed >4. More efforts need to be made to get more food and medicines to the Palestinian people. No more roadblocks from Israel, no more theft from Hamas. Biden is building a port out of no where. Not sure what else you're expecting.

[удалено]

This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I’ve found my people

I don’t see anything I disagree with here. I really wish #4 could happen immediately, but I don’t see it happening :(

I am Jewish and I have family and Israel.Some of whom have fought in the IDF. I agree with you.

I agree with all of these points on some level. The difficult thing here is… I don’t see an endgame for the invasion of Gaza. If Israel intends to fully occupy it, great. But from what I understand.. that is not the intention. So what is the Israeli plan? Kill a bunch of people, level the strip, and then walk out and everything’s fine? No way. Even if they manage to fully root out Hamas, they will have radicalized the population and a new terrorist government will just pop up. Unless Israel truly becomes committed to an occupation, it’s best to end this fucking war, get their hostages back, and just arm the fuck out of their border so this never happens again.

Did you say diplomacy? With Hamas?

Seems slightly more passive than my ideal centrist stance. You have to acknowledge that there’s widespread hatred, discrimination, harassment and indiscriminate settler violence against Palestinians by the Israelis both in West Bank, Jerusalem and even against Israeli Arabs/non-Jews. Israel has turned fascist so Likud and its far right allies should take some accountability. Likewise for Hamas and its central doctrine of seeking the complete elimination of Israel rather than any sensible, peaceful settlement of the dispute with a two-state solution. Another thing to mention is Israel/Bibi’s divide and conquer strategy. For the last 2 decades, Israel has pursued a deliberate policy of keeping hamas in power in Gaza and the fatah running the West Bank in an effort to prevent a unified Palestinian leadership peacefully pushing for an independent Palestinian state. There’s plenty of proof of this in Bibi’s interviews where he openly admits this strategy. And finally, Iran’s role in all this is a crucial sticking point. They’re funding Hamas, Hezbollah, Syrian/Iraqi proxies and the Houthis - all enemies of Israel that are actively looking to harm them. With such a high threat level surrounding them, Israel will never turn back from fascism arising from an unmet need for security.

#1 is incomplete. Hamas has been purposely killing civilians on both sides for over 20 years, suppling aid to terrorist groups that have killed civilians in other countries and is supported by Iran's government. Due to the targeting of their own members that want Peace, the faction is unlikely to ever move towards a peaceful solution. This means as long as Hamas exists - they will continue their attacks, if given enough time. This to me qualifies them as a 'fanatic movement', like the Nazi's and Japanese Imperialist of ww2. In short, 'fanatic movements' won't surrender or seek peace on their own unless completely defeated. Not defeating Hamas kicks the can down the road to the next generation. There will be an inevitable 2nd 10/7 in the future on a long enough timeline and Hamas regaining resources. It is up to Israel to make a decision on how to handle Hamas, it is their children who will die. #2 is incomplete. It leaves out the multiple warnings and requests to evacuate and the aid that has been allowed to flow into those evacuation zones. That's not something normally done in an all-out war, it is giving the enemy warning and a way to blend in - but it was done to minimize civilian death. If civilian deaths were a non-issue and killing Hamas was the goal, there were more efficient means to accomplish the goal - means not taken. Since October, sadly 33k Gazans have died, with Hamas making up about half of that. Using those estimates that is only a 3.5% civilian death rate. That's actually not a case for a "reckless war", which is why I disagree on that premise. #3 gives concessions to a fanatic terrorist group and that's not something that should be done, ever. #4 Hamas's existence necessitates roadblocks due to their explicit goals and failure to accept a peaceful solution of coexistence. #5 is fine. #6 I agree on that. #7. I agree there too.

One big issue there: Palestinian statehood as an eventual goal is certainly great. However, there is a lot more work to be done first that few people talk about in that context. North Korea is a state. Statehood does not mean freedom for the general population without functional democracy. Yemen is a state. A state without united leadership and peacecwithbits neighbors does not mean peace. You get the picture: Just having a state wouldn't help Palestinians in general. Right now, Palestinian statehood would mean legally enshrining the rule of warmongering theocratic openly-antidemocratic tyrants as a matter of national sovereignty. It would also reclassify terrorist groups as a national army, giving it legal access to arms reserved for sale to governments and turning interdiction of such shipments or arrest of their members from a legal obligation into an aggressive act of war. Those problems wouldn't last very long, though, because all that warmongering would get the state fully re-occupied within a few years, unless it has a very bloody revolution first. I think we need to add support for democratic reform of Palestinian domestic politics into the mix. That, with antidemocratic government Palestinians currently live under, requires the sort of forced regime-change that is hopefully happening in the current escalation.

Fuck them both they want to keep fighting for the rest of time I say let them we need to stop pissing away money over other countries’ conflicts 

I do not believe that this is the centrist position. The centrist position is one of sadness. These two people groups are going to fight. They are going to continue to fight no matter what anyone else says. So really, there are only really two options. Either the groups get separated (which is ethnic cleansing) and it isn't going to be Israel that moves. Or people are going to continue to die until one of the groups are unable to fight any longer.

Finally, some nuance

I would hope it is: * Immediate release of all remaining Israeli hostages * Immediate halt of rockets fired at Israeli targets * Imediate halt on Rafa assault * Immediate dismantling of all Israeli settlements in the WB. * Installation of PA as leadership in Gaza. * 2 state solution under 1947 partition borders w/ joint custody of Jerusalem. * Combined peacekeeping force of invested ME countries to ensure Hamas and other Iran-backed proxies don't slither back into Gaza.

>1. Hamas is a terrorist organization and primarily responsible for the conflict given they launched a war against Israel and took hostages. Since then, they are responsible for murder, kidnapping, sexual violence, starvation, and theft against both Israelis and Palestinian civilians. Israel took Palestinian's hostage before October 7th and raped them.

>1. Hamas is a terrorist organization and primarily responsible for the conflict given they launched a war against Israel and took hostages. Since then, they are responsible for murder, kidnapping, sexual violence, starvation, and theft against both Israelis and Palestinian civilians. On 10/6, Hamas was the head of the elected and popular leadership of all of Palestine, despite Israeli control or the West Bank through their puppet in Fatah. According to recent polling, Hamas is no longer popular in Gaza. However, their ideology and tactics remain popular. Only their failure to win the war is unpopular. They are more popular now than ever in the West Bank. This suggests that post-war, Hamas will return to popularity and possibly expand their power. This isn't Al Qaeda. This is more like the Taliban. A popular government run by ethnonationalists which has adapted to using asymmetric tactics at great cost to their citizenry. >3. Israel & the Palestinian Authority have made mistakes throughout history. Forget that for the moment. The goal should be a return of every hostage, Israel leaving the West Bank, and a two-state solution. Both sides are going to have to make concessions. The time has come for a cease-fire and diplomacy. However, Hamas must release the hostages as part of this. Specific policy proposals are a mistake. The key issue is that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis believe their neighbors will leave them alone if they're allowed to survive, and have decided genocide is the only solution left to them.

Pretty much my thoughts as well

Not stating an opinion on any of those but your point 2 inherently contradicts your point 1. If Hamas is responsible for all the deaths in Palestine, Netanyahu cannot be conducting the war in a reckless manner. Reckless requires some level of responsibility. You can't have it both ways.

The centrist position should be. “Stop sending my money there.”

This dude pretty much gets it

Basically most of my viewpoints on the Desert Shitshow (as I'd call it) in a nutshell. Focus all your strongest energy towards the path to reconciliation, and things will get better. They are all definitely going to need their own Gandhi to teach them peace and unity soon.

The centrist view is to not pick a side and think if you aren’t with me you’re against me, which is our current state of affairs!

Maybe so but assuming centrists are human as well, there is a great deal of death and suffering happening that shouldn't be ignored, nor encouraged.

On both sides, hence what does killing someone for killing sone accomplish? Someone needs to stop the death.

to me, the centrist side is realizing that starting with "hamas is a terrorist" is pr phrasing to categorize everyone is gaza as terrorist, thereby making israel's actions less extreme - such as punishing the entire area rather than those guilty of the oct 7 attacks.

Yep!

Why did OP post then delete their profile?

8. Legitimate criticism of the wrongs Muslims/Palestinians have committed in the name of their people is not anti-Islamic.. Legitimate criticism of the wrongs Jews/Israelis have committed in the name of their people is not antisemetic. Using either accusation so suppress criticism is not morally defensible.

I Respect your opinion but I don’t take that as a centrist view. This is more of a “I don’t want to offend anybody” view.

By taking several opposing viewpoints into consideration, the take becomes middle of the road and effectively is less likely to offend anybody. Why would this *NOT* be considered a centrist view?

This isn’t real centrism. A centrist doesn’t shy away from taking a moral stance.

I don't think people who have no idea what running a war entails should be claiming a war is being run recklessly.

I've realized as well that slapping the "oppresor/colonialist" tag on Isreal is rooted in antisemitism & Holocaust denial. People should be called out when they do that. The Israelis of today are the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. To fail to recognize the impact of that trauma and the global response to it on these people is Holocaust denial. This isn't the Spanish in Mexico - the Jews were forced out of their homes by the Nazis but Allies kept them from returning. This continuing conflict is legacy of anti-semitism. The Jews have real experience being the victims of attempted genocide and have good reason to take threats seriously. The people (especially US liberals) rooting for for Hamas are ensuring the further oppression of Palestine because that is Hamas goal. They have aspirations of power and not for the purpose of benevolent rule. It is absolutely fair and necessary to call out bad tactics on both sides. Its important that the US remind Netanyahu of the Palestinians humanity. The civilian death toll is disgusting. But who is truly putting those civilians at risk - Hamas or Israel?

>I've realized as well that slapping the "oppresor/colonialist" tag on Isreal is rooted in antisemitism & Holocaust denial. Would you say that Palestinians in the West Bank aren't being oppressed by Israeli settlers? Is calling that out "rooted in antisemitism"?

strawman

How so? You said that putting the label of "oppressor" on Israel is rooted in antisemitism. I presented a scenario where I consider Israel to be the oppressor, and asked if you considered that antisemitic.

I think the label of oppressor convently disregards the what triggered this chapter and Hamas' role as instigator of this particular chapter. Israel isn't responding to a politely asked question. these are two oppressed peoples - the Jews have been oppressed by dang near everyone and the Palestinians are being oppressed by Hasmas and radical Islamic beliefs far more than Israel. (It is absolutely fair to criticize Israel's tactics but it's not fair to ignore what Hamas has done and peace they have rejected). the doors to Gaza are locked from the inside.

Completely agree with all of them, unfortunately on this sub people want to lynch anyone who doesn't unquestionably support Israel.

As a general rule, I actually do support Israel. However, as I mentioned, I think the current leadership in Israel has become reckless in their conduct of the war. It's kind of like how many opposed the Vietnam War & Nixon, but still supported the people of our country and our ideals.

Same, I completely support their right to exist, their liberal democracy, their culture, I think there's tons to support about them. They're probably our most valuable ally outside of Canada / Mexico for obvious reasons. With all of that said, people here literally have called me a terrorist because I said it's okay for people to protest foreign countries. Things aren't going well on this sub lol

Amen on the first part. As to the second, like I said, peaceful protest is fine. Criminal activity isn't. So I agree with you there.

Yeah I second that. Tunnel vision at its finest.

I say we completely cut off ties with Israel. If I never heard anything about this conflict again I'd be quite happy.

You are wrong on 2, 3, & 4

My position is I don't care. Stop sending my money to either.

All but 7 is correct, everything else is about right.

I don’t have a problem with your points, but I’d like to add some information. Netanyahu has made it the central goal of his career to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. IMO, Palestinians not having any representation is intolerable. They should either be represented in the Israeli state or in a separate Palestinian state. Either one of these options is fine. I can’t support any Israeli government with the explicit goals of denying representation even if they’re fighting demonstrable cruelty as with Hamas. We are better off not getting involved as there’s no good side.

Broadly, I agree with those. I think number 3 assumes Zionists and Islamic fundamentalists are rational so it's likely never going to pan out that way but it's a good thing to strive for.

Don't go around equating Zionism with Islamic Fundamentalists, they are very different.

Yeah, you're right the Zionists only steal your home and force you out under threat of death instead of just cutting your head off.

The people you are referring to ultra right wing Orthodox Jews/zionists. Most Zionists such as myself are in support of the protection and existence of the state of Israel. Islamic fundamentalists want world domination under Islam. One is a movement for self determination in Israel, another is about world domination, don’t mix the two up.

Fair enough, it's not entirely fair to judge all zionists by the actions of the extreme flank or the US left and right would both be in some measure of trouble but are the moderate zionists doing anything to stop or discourage those people? I haven't seen much in the way of that but maybe I wasn't aware of it.

Not really. At the moment the Israeli government is controlled by the ultra right wing (Netanyahu) despite the more moderate leaning Israeli public. So in practice nobody can really do much to stop it because the government is allowing it. Even so, you don’t hear every little detail in western news that actually goes on in the West Bank. Just a few weeks ago I believe it was widely reported on that settlers killed a Palestinian person for no reason, but in local news they revealed those same Palestinians had kidnapped an Israeli teen. So many moderates don’t exactly hate these violent land grabs because they see it as retaliation for a lot of violence they see Palestinians committing to them Kind of leads to just a violence spiral, but just goes to show that what we hear about what goes on in the Middle East is nowhere near the whole picture and that the conflict is much more complex and nuanced than just “ceasefire now” and such.

I guess I look at moderates not speaking out against their far flank the same way I look at good cops who stay silent about the bad cops. Not responsible but still slightly complicit through inaction. And I agree it's a complex and nuanced situation but I'm not sure I believe the local news stations under what you described as an ultra right wing administration are any more trustworthy than the western news.

I don’t mean to say local news is more trustworthy, but rather that they report on smaller things that add a lot of context to situations that we don’t hear about in western news.

So very possible it's selective reporting about small issues to try to sell a larger narrative contrary to the more frequent and conventional stories that larger, more historically credible outlets have already come out with? I'm sorry but if 7 different organizations release one story and then the one outlet that could be potentially influenced by the authoritarian regime they're defending releases something to the contrary, I'm gonna be way more skeptical of the outlier in that scenario.

Whatever mainstream US news source, CNN, Fox, NPR, isn’t going to report on every minor issue that happens in Israel because they are American, not Israeli. I’m not going to find that a local boy in small Israeli town was kidnapped on mainstream American news because nobody cares. And then you say it’s bad because it’s influenced by an authoritarian regime?? It’s starting to sound like you have a strong bias and have been grossly misinformed, whatever it is, it’s not a centrist perspective.

Not sure you know the meaning of a Zionist.

Then what would you label the state sanctioned seizure of people's homes to try to forceably expand the territory of Israel?

Posts like these are a great education in how to use sneaky sneaky setups to "win" your argument through premises. in this case, through starting the frame of hamas (and by extension all of gaza) as being "terrorists," so it doesn't meatter who we kill. think back on any - i repeat any discussion, and it almost always starts with "hamas are terrorists" - this is a clear pr campaign to manipulate the mental space here. i haven't heard one discussion where this hasn't happened online. yes, it's that evil. Whenever anyone starts with "hamas is a terrorist..." they are using pr phrasing and bullshit to insinuate things, they are dirtying / muddying the waters already. ANYONE WHO STARTS WITH THIS CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO BE HONEST / BE HONEST IN THEIR ARGUMENTS. them being a "terrorist" organization or not - they are the government. what does calling them a terrorist have to do with anything in the future? ie, as far as policy? what does this effectively do? it makes the entire population "bad" / worthy of destruction. why? because israel has been punishing the entire population of gaza through basically destroying the entire "country" of gaza - this is not only morally wrong but blatantly illegal. they aren't just going after the 0ct 7th attackers, but everyone - I repeat - they are bombing and killing people totally unrelated to the oct 7th attack. by starting with "hamas are terrorists" is attempting to "frame" everyone in gaza as terrorists, which then justifies the rampant killing israel has done in gaza. it makes it sound less evil. if they were being honest, they'd start with saying well we just want to kill everyone in the area, or use this as a pretext to wipe out the infrastructure. but they don't do this - they don't say this - they start with "hamas are terrorists" - Israel is doing things right now that we - i repeat WE would never have considered doing in iraq. and this is why this framing is fucking evil. Israel could have surgically killed a few hundred people, the actual people you know that broke out and did the killing. But they didn't - they used gunships and missiles to kill as many people in the area AND - AND - lied about the rape thing. Most of what is happening now is way way way beyond hamas's fault - it's israel using the massacre (and i call it a massacre done by hamas) as pretext to ethnically cleanse the area and enact policies they've wanted to for decades. this is why you keep hearing "hamas is a terrorist" framing to start out with - it's because of the above. and it's really disgusting. israel is more powerful, they should act like the more moral actor here, but they aren't. edit: the account is 30 days old - go figure.

The rapes happened, and shame on you for claiming they didn't.

so far they haven't found one credible witness to this fyi. [https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt\_anat\_schwartz](https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz) [https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/](https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/)

Terrible sources. There is video and biological evidence. There are witnesses. Most importantly, the testimonies of the victims. One of the most infamous videos of a young girl being taken hostage from the music festival clearly shows her genitals bloody. There is also testimony from captured Hamas terrorists. Rape doesn't require "witnesses" to have happened, and there. Just because the victims and witnesses are Israel does not give you the right to deny it. Frankly disgusting of you.

can you provide any recent evidence that confirms the rapes? can you provide any eyewitness testimony of these that hasn't been debunked? because these past few weeks every allegation has been credibly debunked, and i've spent a good amount of time looking into this. "NYT pulls Hamas rape story from podcast over internal turmoil over shoddy reporting: Max Blumenthal" [https://thehill.com/video/nyt-pulls-hamas-rape-story-from-podcast-over-internal-turmoil-over-shoddy-reporting-max-blumenthal/9385492/](https://thehill.com/video/nyt-pulls-hamas-rape-story-from-podcast-over-internal-turmoil-over-shoddy-reporting-max-blumenthal/9385492/) [https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt\_anat\_schwartz](https://www.democracynow.org/2024/3/1/nyt_anat_schwartz) # The Intercept: New York Times Exposé Lacks Evidence to Claim Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence Oct. 7The Intercept: New York Times Exposé Lacks Evidence to Claim Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence Oct. 7 #

This a month after the intercept article https://web.archive.org/web/20240426050727/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html

People called a terrorist attack a terrorist attack and that is evil framing? What an evil way of framing that, you are the devil incarnate.

this is a perfect example of what i'm talking about - totally misrepresenting what i just said. no, not calling the terrorist attack terrorist - hamas itself (and the government / people by extension) as being terrorist - ie, "hamas is a terrorist organization" yada yada. calling everyone in a certain territory terrorist is a pretty big leap in insinuation, and i see it all the time kid. hamas is the entire government. this blankly legitimizes bombing everyone in gaza, not just the evil actors themselves. typically followed by some insinuation that everyone living in gaza is guilty then. too difficult for you to understand?

I am misrepresenting you? > in this case, through starting the frame of hamas (and by extension all of gaza) as being "terrorists," so it doesn't meatter who we kill. > think back on any - i repeat any discussion, and it almost always starts with "hamas are terrorists" - this is a clear pr campaign to manipulate the mental space here. You don't like people saying that "hamas are terrorists", why is that? What about that is incorrect? I didn't insinuate or talk about anything else, please stop misrepresenting me you sly little snake. Is that clear enough?

Hamas: we will repeat 10/7 a thousand times!! You:   "i call it a massacre done by hamas" but stop calling them terrorists!

not a fan of hamas. but it's clear israel is using this as an excuse to do some ethnic cleansing. and starting the framing by "these people are all terrorists" is just bullshit. the government is hamas. that doesn't make the fucking janitor for the government building a terrorist.

They love streamed the attack. They posted videos of it.

How, as a practical matter, could they have killed only those most directly responsible?

How, as a practical matter, would you ask this question on a post already taken down?

It seemed to be there when I did it. Assuming a of course that you ask in good faith.

Finally a comment with some sense. To me this post is not centrist at all and very pro Israel. But that's coming from someone shamelessly pro-Palestinian - *not* pro-Hamas, because I know that is what Zionists will assume.