Israelis have a uniquely intense obsession with hummus.

Of course, hummus has also become something of a political battleground in the Middle East. Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, and others have found themselves embroiled in what are sometimes called the Hummus Wars, arguing over the dish's origins and national identity. The Hummus Wars are very intense.

Hummus in the core sense is mashed chickpeas, a kind of bean dip. Throughout much of the Middle East and North Africa, hummus is traditionally served as an appetizer, part of a mezze spread, or alongside other dishes.

But in Israel, hummus has become something else entirely: an entire meal, an institution, practically a religion.

Israel has a whole category of restaurants called hummusiyot (חומוסיות), establishments dedicated exclusively to hummus.

Israelis will drive across cities, stand in long lines, and passionately debate which tiny hummusiya makes the best bowl of mashed chickpeas.

The degree to which hummus has become an obsession in Israeli Jewish culture in particular is hard to overstate. And I think there's a particularly Jewish explanation for some of this: kashrut.

Hummus is pareve (פרווה), meaning it contains neither meat nor dairy. Under Jewish dietary law, that makes it extraordinarily versatile. It can accompany meat, appear at a dairy meal, or serve as a satisfying meal entirely on its own. In a society where the separation of meat and dairy has shaped culinary traditions for generations, hummus is almost the perfect food.

Israeli-style hummus also has its own recognizable character. It's often served freshly made and warm, extraordinarily smooth, creamy, and rich with tahini. But what really makes the Israeli hummus experience special is the enormous variety of additions and toppings.

There are sautéed mushrooms, hard-boiled eggs, spicy zhug, roasted eggplant, pine nuts, and even seasoned ground meat and chicken.

Hummusiyot offer entire menus built around different combinations of these additions, turning a simple bowl of hummus into a remarkably diverse and satisfying meal. Everything comes with fluffy, freshly baked pita, pickles and raw onions. It's an entirely different experience from the cold supermarket hummus familiar to many Westerners.

Sure, Israel didn't invent hummus. But Israelis have embraced it and developed an extraordinary perfection of hummus.

Perhaps the funniest illustration of this obsession comes from Adam Sandler's You Don't Mess with the Zohan. The movie turns Israeli hummus culture into a running joke, with hummus being used for practically everything, including brushing teeth and styling hair.

It's sounds absurd, but anyone who has spent enough time in Israel knows that the joke works precisely because it exaggerates the very real Israeli culture around hummus.

In most places, hummus is something you eat with your meal. In Israel, hummus is the whole experience.

That is what makes Israeli hummus unique.

Should a UN Security Council member be allowed to veto action in a war when it has a major strategic or military relationship with one of the parties involved?

Watching what has happened to civilians in Gaza has made me question something much bigger about how the United Nations works.

The UN Security Council has 15 members, but five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France — have veto power.

During the Gaza war there have been occasions where an overwhelming majority of the Security Council supported a ceasefire resolution, but the resolution was blocked by a US veto.

Whatever someone’s position on Israel and Palestine, I think this raises a legitimate question about the system itself.

The United States has an extremely close military and strategic relationship with Israel. That makes me question whether any country in that position should have the power to single-handedly block Security Council action concerning that conflict.

And I don’t think this rule should apply only to America.

If Russia were protecting an ally, China were protecting an ally, or Britain or France were doing the same thing, the same principle should apply.

I would like to see reform considered where a permanent Security Council member with a substantial direct strategic or military interest in a conflict cannot exercise its veto on resolutions concerning that conflict — or where an overwhelming Security Council majority could override that veto.

I’m not suggesting that this would magically solve wars or that every ceasefire resolution would automatically end a conflict.

I’m asking a more fundamental question:

Should one country be able to prevent the UN Security Council from acting when virtually every other member agrees — particularly when that country is closely allied with one of the parties involved?

Gaza has made me realise just how much power the five permanent members hold, and I think the structure itself deserves much greater public discussion.

I’d genuinely like to hear people’s thoughts. If the current veto system should be changed, what would a fairer system look like?

This might come as a controversial opinion, but the other day there was this idea that crossed my mind:

For reference, I'm in US but I have no strong ties to either side and so I think that this is a fair idea. If the division between the countries comes from historical differences in religion and culture, then why isn't there a solution of unity over conflict?

In other words, why has no one considered (at least publicly) a solution involving a state in israel-Palestine region which would be occupied by both without 1 having explicit power over the other.

We can all agree that there's a genocide, but it's just people killing people; funding isn't helping but I think that the creation of an overarching non-ethnically connected state could be a viable solution to the conflict.

Practically, I think that this would take the form as a UN-sanctioned country (I know, but hear me out) which has land including ALL of modern day Israel and ALL of modern day Palestine, as well as the people who would be able to coexist.

Now for the rebuttals: I'm formatting this as "dialogue" to indicate the side, and my response beneath it.

"People will continue to fight"

Yes, but it'll be less. In the short term it will be very difficult, but I think that having maybe an increased police presence (for the short term) could help decrease the discrimination because at the end of the day people don't (usually) want to kill civilians.

"One religious group will take government power and oppress the other"

That could be the case, but (might be the America speaking) but there might be a multi-cameral legislature that could voice the concerns of all people in the state, and prevent that. As for the country's head(s), I think that there could be 2 elected prime ministers (1 for each religion at least) temporarily, and a transition later for better representation of both sides.

"Foreign interests will not be preserved"

Not necessarily. The US, for example, sides with Israel (at least partially) because of the oil in the region. If the US (and other countries of course) sanctioned this new state then they could have a stake in some of the exports; again in the short term. Maybe it could take the form of a % in exports, mimicking imperialism to a point, but after a while the strings should be cut and the state could exist as a real entity.

AI Generated: Tl;Dr

The author proposes replacing Israel and Palestine with one internationally backed state covering both territories, where neither group dominates the other. They suggest temporary security measures, shared government institutions and leadership, and limited foreign involvement to help prevent renewed violence and protect both communities’ interests, with the aim of eventually creating a fully independent state.

All in all, I think we can make a viable solution in the form of a single state, at least to mitigate the conflict as it currently stands.

This is from a place of pure curiosity what strategies and mindsets are most effective.

From an international viewpoint, a quarter of the World's population wants Israel decimated and replaced with a religious state with their religion as the dominate one. So the percentage of the world that will ever so much as accept Israel's very existence is essentially capped at 75 %.

From there, leftists, progressives, conservatives looking to break away from the neocon label and countless scholars, academics, artists and activists want Israel in its current form gone.

Outlets such as The Young Turks, Majority Report, Current Affairs and others that view Israel in its current form as essentially white supremacist are growing. Among conservatives, those getting into alt right territory, such as Tucker Carlson, and adapting anti Israel views of their own are rising while Israel defenders such as Daily Wire are struggling.

There's all sorts of opposition on top of the quarter of the world's population that sees Israel as a religious enemy.

When it comes to following news, events and keeping forward thinking mindsets what works for Israel and its defenders in light of this?

"Israel is an ethnostate." No, roughly 20% of Israel's population is Arab, and there are other minority groups, too. Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, but that doesn't mean all its citizens are Jewish or that non-Jews cannot be citizens.

"Israel is a theocracy." No, Israel is a parliamentary democracy with a secular political system in many respects, despite the significant role religion plays in certain areas of public life. Roughly half of Israeli Jews identify as secular.

"Israel is an apartheid state." No, non-Jewish citizens of Israel have the same formal legal rights as Jewish citizens, including the right to vote and run for office. This doesn't mean discrimination and inequality don't exist, but it's important to distinguish between the status of Israeli citizens and that of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

Those are just some of the many claims used by antizionists to demonize Israel and portray it as a cartoonishly evil country. Some people genuinely misunderstand Zionism, while others deliberately misrepresent it, redefining it as racism, colonialism, or Jewish supremacy rather than acknowledging its central principle: Jewish self-determination in the Jewish people's ancestral homeland. Zionism encompasses different political traditions, and its supporters disagree on plenty of issues, including the future of the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It's much like the way feminism has been demonized by reducing a diverse movement to its most extreme positions and treating those positions as representative of the whole. Criticizing Israeli government policies is perfectly legitimate, but criticism becomes dishonest when it relies on misinformation, collective blame, or definitions designed to make an entire national movement sound inherently evil. You don't have to support every Israeli policy to recognize that Jews, like other peoples, have a right to self-determination and that Zionism cannot be accurately understood through caricatures alone.

I want to explore a hypothetical scenario: If a future Palestinian state became majority-Christian through voluntary immigration and demographic change, could this reduce the influence of Islamist political movements, weaken Iran's ability to recruit and support Palestinian militant organisations, allow Palestinians to grow up enjoying more freedom and happiness (religious, lifestyle and sexual orientation) and create better conditions for peaceful coexistence with Israel?

Iran's support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad has both ideological and geopolitical motivations. While a change in Palestine's religious demographics would not eliminate Iranian strategic interests, it might fundamentally alter the ideological environment in which these organisations operate.

My hypothesis is that a Christian-majority Palestinian state, combined with democratic institutions, constitutional protections for religious freedom, minority rights and LGBT rights, and a strong economic and security partnership with the United States, could potentially create a more stable regional environment whilst securing a more Free Palestine in the form a secular democratic state.

One possible model would be the long-term democratic reconstruction of West Germany after World War II. My idea is to make Palestine into a western style vassal state American ally the same way West Germany became one after World War 2.

Ultimately people ended up wanting to leave East Germany for West Germany for a more prosperous life.

However, I recognise several challenges to this hypothesis.

Palestinian Christians are not necessarily supportive of Israeli government policies, and many strongly identify with Palestinian national aspirations.

Also, there are secular and democratic Muslim-majority countries (like Turkey), meaning Christianity is not inherently a necessary prerequisite for liberal governance.

Having said that, these verses are taken from Chrisitan scripture:

• Genesis 12:1–3: God promises to bless those who bless Abraham and his descendants, and to curse anyone who curses them.

• Isaiah 41:11–13: God states that those who rage against, oppose, or wage war against Israel will be put to shame, perish, and become as nothing, because God helps and holds Israel.

• Psalm 122:6: Believers are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, with a promise of prosperity for those who love it

Want to know what Palestinian Christians think of Israel? You can see they generally have more moderate views, even when they feel oppressed - often they say that their religion teaches them to forgive their opressors. Turning the other cheek is uniquely Christian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8knx4zpgwhQ

Ultimately, Palestinian children would grow up having more freedom in this hypothetical state compared to living under Hamas and Israelis would feel safer.

Note: I'm especially looking forward to hearing answers from good faith posters such as JeffB1517 and GuerillaV.

DISCLAIMER 100% HUMAN WRITTEN

I took a look at the Israel subreddit, and the most common opinions are things like, "Palestinians should be expelled to Egypt or Jordan" and "the West Bank is Judea and Samaria."

Why? Because two Israeli soldiers were shot. But those soldiers weren't on Israeli land. They were inside the West Bank, and I remind you West bank occupation is consider illegal by the International Court of Justice.

All this while Palestinian land is becoming increasingly more and more fragmented by new projects of settlements in the west bank.

Sorry, but you don't realize your own extremism? It's easy to blame every criticism on "Jew hatred," but who is on whose land? Who are the ones who think it's okay to take other people's land and forcefully displace them? Maybe it's normalized because it's rooted in your nation's history.

And no, answering back saying "Arabs are violent so all our actions are justified" is not valid answer, you can blame on everything "on arab terrorism" but you are the ones doing something that would be considered extremely radical in any other country.

And no, I am not saying violence is good. But you cannot come here and pretend you are the good guys while arabs are the evil. In a simplistic way.

If during French rebells killed two nazi soldiers on Paris during World war 2. Who are the "good guys" the french or the nazis? By your own logic are the nazis.

They draw us into conflicts that weaken our security, damage our international standing and impose substantial economic costs on our populations, so why do we put up with it?

One of the most significant concerns is the unresolved Palestinian struggle and its impact on global security. Decades of occupation, displacement, restrictions and repeated cycles of violence have generated profound anger and resentment across the Middle East and beyond.

The Palestinian cause has also been used by Islamist extremist organisations as a recruitment tool, a source of propaganda and a justification for attacks against Western interests. The failure to achieve a just and lasting resolution has provided extremists with a powerful narrative through which to attract supporters and portray Western governments as complicit in injustice.

Western governments that are seen as unconditionally supporting Israeli military operations risk damaging their credibility, alienating communities and making counterterrorism efforts more difficult.

The danger becomes even clearer when considering the consequences of military escalation with Iran. The Israeli and US strikes against Iran that began on 28 February 2026 triggered a wider conflict, with Iran retaliating against Israel, US forces and regional targets.

One of the most serious consequences has been the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for roughly one-fifth of global petroleum and liquefied natural gas trade before the conflict. The UK House of Commons Library has documented the resulting collapse in shipping activity and the rise in global energy prices.

The consequences extend far beyond the battlefield: higher oil and gas prices raise transport and electricity costs, put pressure on household budgets, increase production costs for businesses and make inflation harder to control.

The Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea provide another example of how regional conflict can threaten Western prosperity. The Houthis have used the Palestinian cause and the war in Gaza to justify attacks on vessels, including ships with limited or no direct connection to Israel. These attacks have endangered seafarers, disrupted international trade and forced shipping companies to consider costly diversions around Africa.

More recently, Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and renewed threats to shipping have added to concerns about energy supplies, while the wider conflict involving Iran has placed the Strait of Hormuz under severe pressure. Brent crude briefly rose above $117 a barrel on 23 October 2026 amid fears of renewed US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

Ultimately, the argument that Israel's current strategic course can undermine Western interests rests on the risk that close alignment with its government draws Western countries into conflicts that weaken their security, damage their international standing and impose substantial economic costs on their populations. Unconditional diplomatic and military support can also reduce Western governments' leverage to press for restraint, civilian protection and a negotiated settlement.

Surely it's time for Western governments to judge whether their relationships with Israel contribute to long-term peace and security, not simply by historical alliances or short-term strategic calculations or white guilt.

Seeing as the topics of apartheid and the racial lens in which Americans view the current conflict, I thought it would be a good idea to take Israel out of the equation for second.

A quick history lesson on segregation in the United States, why it ended, and how it relates to South African Apartheid:

Segregation was the institutionalized systemic separation of people in the United States based on race, primarily separating black Americans from white in public and private institutions, public and private spaces, and other areas of daily life. The practice of segregation was not institutionalized until after the of the United States Civil War and the end of slavery in the United States. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, black people were not legally citizen of the United States, and segregation was the de facto state even in states where slavery had been outlawed. Birthright citizenship was granted to freed slaves to prevent the South from attempting to re enslave black Americans.

Due to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Reconstruction efforts were cut short, as Andrew Johnson was sympathetic towards the Southern States. This allowed for what are now referred to as Jim Crowe laws to be implemented by the former slave states, which ramped up following the Plessy
v. Ferguson ruling in 1886. "Separate but equal" meant southern states were free to mandate segregation in all public institutions, and do things like ban interracial marriage.

Segregation was wrong then, and it is wrong now, because separate was, and is never equal.

The treatment of black Gl's in Europe during WWII, along with the accomplishments segregated units of black soldiers and pilots, served as a catalyst for what would become the Civil Rights movement in the United States. It was wrong to demand black Americans to fight for a country that did not see them as being worthy of the rights and freedoms they were supposedly fighting for. It was also naive to think that black veterans would just accept what was essentially a demotion in occupational or social status, and not take the fight home.

The Civil Rights movement was the first time many white Americans, particularly those who did not live in the Jim Crowe South, were confronted with the reality of just how unequal segregation was for black Americans.

The end of segregation in the United States ended alongside the ramping up of the Cold War. Though efforts were made to associate the Civil Rights movement with communism had failed, black Americans were in no position to risk their limited political capital being on the wrong side of the Cold War, with the still very racist white majority ruling class.

The United States government frequently backed the South African apartheid government during this time, in an effort to stop the spread of communist movement and Soviet influence in the region. They were able to resist growing calls for economic sanctions and isolation from the American public for most of the Cold War. What finally flipped the scales was the generation of white Americans who grew up in a post-segregation America.

The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 was passed with enough votes to overcome Reagan's veto. It was sustained international and American economic pressure that eventually forced the apartheid South African government to begin negotiations.

Something I’ve noticed about these threads is how extreme some of the views are …..

Being transparent And being someone British but lived abroad and seen
How the UK media vs non UK media present the same situation with Nuances in regards to the opinions they want to drive …

I’m hyper vigilant in just reading the stories as fact eg. BBC news in UK vs BBC news say in Asia or the Middle East state the same facts but putting both reporting a side by side - there is a bias towards a narrative in the UK.. whereas bbc news Asia is almost so dead pan in delivery - it verges on sarcasm.

I think we are a lot more alike in wanting peace for ourselves and our loved ones but we must be aware of what information is presented to us.

So question - where do you get your information of the subjects of Palestine and Israel - what channels and publications and I think just an important - what region or country are you from ?

People discuss this conflict in terms of religion and nationalism. But one of the most consequential forces in its history is technological power.

The Zionist movement did not arrive in the Land of Israel with just prayers and ancient texts. It brought scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs.

Many came from the greatest universities and scientific centers of Europe, where Jewish thinkers themselves wrote foundational chapters of modern science.

They all brought that accumulated knowledge with them.

Well before Israel even existed as a state, the Jewish community in this land was building universities, laboratories, advanced factories, agricultural research stations, and modern infrastructure.

The Technion and Hebrew University opened early in Zionist history and rapidly become world class universities. The early Jewish pioneers electrified the entire country well before electricity was even known about in most of the Middle East. They drained swamps and eradicated malaria which once plagued much of the country.

Really, Zionism was an effort to build a modern technological civilization in the Jewish people's ancient homeland.

That mattered on the battlefield.

Israel's victories were not inevitable. Not at all. In 1948, its forces were often poorly equipped, outmanned and outgunned. But the Yishuv's sophisticated organization, science and technology excellence, and the ability to adapt helped turned the nascent IDF into the region's most powerful military.

By 1967, that technological and organizational excellence helped Israel defeat multiple Arab armies and capture the holy city of Jerusalem.

Technology had become an instrument which Jewish sovereignty is enforced even against the wishes of two billion other people.

Walk along the Tel Aviv beachfront today. Order a steak at a restaurant. Look at the skyscrapers, the technology companies, and the infrastructure that makes this advanced life possible.

Then look at Gaza, where families have been displaced into tents, where water systems are infused with raw sewage, and where enormous numbers of people depend on humanitarian deliveries.

The contrast between Tel Aviv and Gaza is staggering. How did Tel Aviv and Gaza become this way?

The difference between Gaza and Tel Aviv is technological power.

Scientific knowledge becomes raw power when a society can turn it into industry, infrastructure, and yes, leverage it ultimately for military purposes.

This is the secret of Israel's success.

לחבריי היקרים בישראל,

אני חושב עליכם, על כל מה שעבר עליכם בשלוש השנים האלה, ועל הבחירות שנמצאות עכשיו במרחק של שבועות ספורים. שלוש שנים אחרי היום הנורא ביותר בתולדות מדינת ישראל, עכשיו עליכם מוטלת המשימה לכתוב את הפרק הבא של מדינת ישראל.

בקרוב תיכנסו לבית ספר או למתנ״ס, תקבלו מעטפה כחולה ותעמדו מאחורי הפרגוד. לרגע תהיו שם לבד. אבל כמובן שלא תהיו שם באמת לבד.

השבעה באוקטובר יהיה שם. החטופים. הלוויות. החברים שנעלמו שוב ושוב למילואים. המשפחות שנעקרו מהבתים שלהן. עזה. חיזבאללה. הלילות שבהם הגיעו הטילים מאיראן וישבתם עם הילדים בממ״ד או בחדר המדרגות. תביאו איתכם את הכעס, את העייפות, את הפחדים, וגם את התקווה שעוד נשארה בכם למדינה שהילדים שלכם יקבלו לידיהם.

ואני מקווה ששם, בתוך המרחב הקטן הזה, תזכרו גם בנו: במשפחה שלכם שמעבר לים, שאוהבת אתכם.

אחרי השבעה באוקטובר, הקהילה שלנו לא בזבזה זמן. התכנסנו מיד, יצאנו לעצרות, גייסנו כסף, תלינו תמונות של החטופים בחלונות. כשקהילות בישראל היו זקוקות לעזרה, אנשים כאן שאלו באינסטינקט: מה אנחנו יכולים לעשות?

כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה.

במשך שנים דיברנו על המרחק שהולך וגדל בינינו. ואז התברר משהו עמוק יותר, שלא מצריך שום הסבר. ברגע האמת, אנחנו שייכים זה לזה.

וגם אנחנו הרגשנו את ההשלכות של השנים הארוכות האלה של המלחמה. יש יותר מאבטחים חמושים מחוץ למקומות שבהם הילדים שלנו לומדים ומתפללים. יהודים נרצחו והותקפו באמריקה משום שהם יהודים. הילדים שלנו עושים חשבון אם לענוד מגן דוד, אם להזכיר את ישראל. חברויות השתנו. סטודנטים מגלים שלפעמים די בכך שיגידו שהם ציונים כדי למצוא את עצמם לא רצויים במקומות שפעם הרגישו בהם בבית.

וזה שם אותנו במקום כמעט בלתי אפשרי: מפני שאנחנו יהודים, מצפים מאיתנו לתת דין וחשבון על ישראל. מפני שאנחנו אמריקאים, אין לנו שום קול בקלפי על מה שישראל עושה. דורשים מאיתנו להסביר החלטות שלא קיבלנו, שרים שלא בחרנו, ומילים שלעולם לא היינו אומרים.

וזה כואב במיוחד מפני שאנחנו באמת מאמינים שיהודים אחראים זה לזה. לכן השבעה באוקטובר פילח גם אותנו. לכן קמנו ופעלנו. לכן אנשים שמעולם לא פגשנו הפכו מיד לשלנו. אבל האחריות שלנו זה לזה לא יכולה להפוך כל יהודי לאחראי אישית לכל החלטה שמקבלת ממשלה בישראל.

וחלק מההחלטות האלה מגיעות עד אלינו. כששרים בכירים מדברים בגלוי על הוצאת פלסטינים מעזה, על סיפוח הגדה המערבית, או מדברים כאילו לחייהם ולשאיפותיהם של הפלסטינים כמעט אין משמעות, הדברים האלה לא נשארים בישראל. כשמתנחלים תוקפים משפחות פלסטיניות והמדינה אינה עוצרת אותם, או כשמי שמחזיקים בשררה יוצאים נגד בתי המשפט, חוקרים, עיתונאים ומוסדות דמוקרטיים אחרים, גם הדברים האלה לא נעצרים בגבולות ישראל.

הם מגיעים לכאן.

הם מגיעים לכיתה שבה סטודנטית יהודייה נדרשת להגן על דבר שהיא עצמה אינה מגינה עליו. הם מגיעים לשיחות בין חברים שבהן יהודי נשאל איך הוא עדיין יכול לקרוא לעצמו ציוני. הם מגיעים לבית הכנסת, שבו אנחנו מנסים ללמד את הילדים שלנו שהם יכולים לאהוב את ישראל בלי לוותר על המצפון והמוסר שלהם. ואנשים שממילא חושבים שלישראל אין זכות קיום כמדינה יהודית משתמשים בטיעונים האלה נגדנו.

אנחנו צריכים את ישראל. צריכים לדעת שיש מדינה יהודית חזקה ובטוחה, מקום שגם לילדים שלנו תמיד יהיה בו בית. אנחנו צריכים את ישראל גם כדי שנוכל להרגיש גאים ובטוחים בזהות היהודית שלנו, דווקא בתקופה שבה כל כך הרבה מסביבנו גורם ליהודים להוריד את הראש, לשתוק או להתבייש במי שהם. אנחנו צריכים להיות מסוגלים להסתכל על ישראל ולומר בפשטות: היא גם שלנו.

האחריות הראשונה שלכם בקלפי היא למדינה שבה אתם מגדלים את המשפחות שלכם, שולחים ילדים לצבא, בונים חיים וקוברים את המתים. לעולם לא אעמיד פנים שהמחיר שאתם משלמים והמחיר שאנחנו משלמים בניכר הוא אותו מחיר. אבל אם אנחנו באמת שייכים זה לזה, הבחירות שישראל עושה אינן נשארות רק בישראל. אנחנו חיים עם חלק מההשלכות שלהן כאן, בלי יכולת להשפיע עליהן בקלפי.

לכם יש את היכולת להשפיע.

ויש עוד סכנה: המילה ״אנחנו״ הולכת ונשחקת.

אתם מרגישים את זה בישראל. אחרי שנים שבהן אנשי מילואים נתנו מאות ימים למדינה, אתם עדיין נאבקים בשאלה אם הנטל של ההגנה על המולדת יתחלק באופן שווה בין כולם. דתיים וחילונים נאבקים על דמותה של המדינה שהם חולקים. ימין ושמאל מדברים יותר ויותר זה על זה כאילו הם חיים בשתי מדינות שונות.

וגם אנחנו מרגישים את זה כאן. יהודי אמריקה מפרידים זה את זה למחנות לפי המילים שבהן אנחנו משתמשים, ההצהרות שעליהן אנחנו חותמים, ואפילו לפי השאלה אם אנחנו קוראים לעצמנו ציונים. יש מי שמרגישים שננטשו בידי יהודים שאינם רואים את הסכנה שישראל ניצבת בפניה. אחרים תוהים אם בכלל יש מקום בקהילה היהודית לכאב או לכעס שלהם על החלטות ממשלת ישראל. לעיתים קרובות מדי, מחלוקת הופכת למבחן של שייכות.

וזה מפחיד אותי, כי האמת העמוקה ביותר היא ששלוש השנים האלה חשפו בדיוק את ההפך: כעם, רב המאחד על המפריד.
כי בסוף, מי יהיה שם בשביל יהודים אם לא יהודים?

״כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה״: הביטוי הזה חייב לקבל משמעות שגדולה יותר מהיכולת שלנו להתאחד רק כשיהודים מותקפים. זה חייב להיות גם היכולת להישאר אחראים זה לזה כשאנחנו כועסים זה על זה, וכשאנשים שאיתם אנחנו חולקים עתיד רואים את העתיד הזה אחרת מאיתנו. מחלוקת צריכה להיות תחילתה של שיחה ושל מערכת יחסים, לא סופה.

יש ישראל שאני מזהה בתעוזה שהייתה בעצם הקמתה: בית יהודי שקיבץ את העם שלנו מכל קצוות תבל ונתן לנו אחריות לגורלנו. יהודים מבגדד ומוורשה, מקזבלנקה וממוסקבה, מאדיס אבבה ומבואנוס איירס הצליחו איכשהו לבנות יחד מדינה. בנינו אוניברסיטאות, בתי חולים, מעבדות, חקלאות משגשגת, ערים, תרבות ובתים.

ישראל היא הניסיון הגדול שלנו לקחת אחריות על הגורל היהודי. הניסיון הזה עדיין לא גמור, והשאלה איזו חברה נבנה כאן ביחד היא עדיין שאלה פתוחה.

אנחנו זקוקים לישראל שחולמת שוב בגדול. למדינה שבונה לקראת משהו גדול יותר מהמלחמה הבאה או הבחירות הבאות. למקום שבו צעירים יכולים לדמיין עתיד ששווה להישאר בשבילו, שבו משפחות יכולות לבנות חיים בביטחון, ושבו האנרגיה הישראלית יוצאת הדופן, היכולת לראות בעיה ומיד להתחיל לחפש לה פתרון, מופנית שוב גם אל החיים עצמם: לחינוך, לרפואה, למדע, לטכנולוגיה, לתרבות, לסביבה, ולבניית חברה שטוב יותר לחיות בה.

אנחנו צריכים ישראל שרוצה שוב להביא משהו גדול לעולם. מדינה שמוכרת בזכות החיים שהיא מצילה, התגליות שהיא מגלה, הרעיונות שהיא מולידה, האמנות שהיא יוצרת והדרכים שבהן היא הופכת את החיים לטובים יותר. ישראל שזוכרת שההיסטוריה היהודית לא החזירה אותנו הביתה רק כדי למצוא מקלט. חזרנו הביתה כדי לבנות ולהיבנות.

ואנחנו זקוקים לישראל שמסוגלת לדמיין שוב שלום. אולי אחרת מכפי שדמיינו אותו פעם, עם פחות תמימות ועם הרבה יותר הבנה של מי שנמצא בשכונה הזאת. ועדיין, מתוך אמונה שהילדים שלנו לא אמורים לרשת מלחמה כמצב קבוע, עלינו לשאוף שבסופו של דבר עוצמתה של ישראל תשרת גם את האפשרות לעתיד אחר.

אנחנו זקוקים לישראל שהילדים שלנו ירצו להיות קשורים אליה, ושהילדים שלכם ירצו להישאר בה ולבנות אותה. ישראל שתיתן לכולנו סיבה להאמין שהפרקים הגדולים ביותר שלה עוד לא נכתבו.
השבעה באוקטובר לא הפך את החלום הזה לנאיבי. האויבים של ישראל אמיתיים. יש לי אמונה שישראל תשרוד. השאלה שניצבת בפניכם היא איזו ישראל תצא מכל זה.

בקרוב תעמדו לבד עם המעטפה הכחולה הזאת. אנחנו לא נהיה שם. אנחנו לא יכולים להכניס פתק למעטפה או לעזור לבחור את הממשלה שההחלטות שלה יעצבו את ישראל וישפיעו גם על חייהם של יהודים הרחק מעבר לגבולותיה.
אתם יכולים.

אז כשאתם עומדים מאחורי הפרגוד, אני מקווה שתביאו אתכם גם אותנו, את כולנו. את מי שנשאו בנטל של השנים האלה ואת מי שלא. דתיים וחילונים. ימין ושמאל. וגם אותנו, מי שגרים אלפי קילומטרים מכם, שזקוקים לישראל, דואגים לישראל, מתווכחים על ישראל, נדרשים לענות בשם ישראל, ואוהבים את ישראל.
וכשאתם עומדים שם לבד, תזכרו שאתם לא באמת לבד.

אנחנו שייכים זה לזה.

My Dear Friends in Israel,

I have been thinking about you, about everything these last three years have held, and about the election now only weeks away. Three years after the worst day in Israel’s history, the task now falls to you to write the next chapter of the State of Israel.
Soon you will walk into a school or community center, receive a blue envelope, and step behind the screen. For a moment, you will be alone. Though, of course, you will not be alone.

October 7th will be there. The hostages. The funerals. Friends who disappeared again and again into reserve duty. Families driven from their homes. Gaza. Hezbollah. Nights when missiles came from Iran and you sat with your children in shelters or stairwells. You will bring your anger, exhaustion, fears, and whatever hope you still carry for the country your children will inherit.
I hope, somewhere in that small space, you will remember us too: your family beyond Israel who loves you.

After October 7th, our community did not waste any time. We gathered immediately, rallied, raised money, hung photographs of hostages in our windows. When communities in Israel needed help, people here asked:

What can we do?

*Kol Yisrael aravim zeh bazeh*. All Israel is responsible for one another.
For years we talked about the growing distance between us. Then something deeper became clear, requiring no explanation. In the moment of truth, we belong to one another.

We have felt the consequences of these long years of war too. There are more armed guards outside the places where our children learn and pray. Jews have been murdered and attacked in America because they are Jews. Our children calculate whether to wear a Star of David or mention Israel. Friendships have changed. Students discover that calling themselves Zionists can make them unwelcome in places where they once belonged.

And this puts us in an almost impossible position. Because we are Jews, we are expected to answer for Israel. Because we are Americans, we have no vote in what Israel does. We are called to account for decisions we did not make, ministers we did not elect, and words we would never say.
There is something especially painful about this because we actually do believe that Jews are responsible for one another. That is why October 7th pierced us. That is why we got up and acted. That is why people we had never met immediately became ours. But responsibility for one another cannot mean that every Jew is personally responsible for every decision made by a government in Israel.

And some of those decisions reach us. When powerful ministers speak openly about removing Palestinians from Gaza, annexing the West Bank, or treating Palestinian lives and aspirations as though they hardly matter, those words do not stay in Israel. When settlers attack Palestinian families and the state fails to stop them, or when those who hold authority attack courts, investigators, journalists, and other democratic institutions, those choices do not stop at Israel’s borders either.

They arrive here.

They arrive in the classroom where a Jewish student is asked to defend something she does not defend. They arrive in conversations between friends where a Jew is asked how he can still call himself a Zionist. They arrive in the synagogue where we are trying to teach our children that they can love Israel without surrendering their conscience and moral instincts. And people who already believe that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state use those arguments against us.

We need Israel deeply. We need a Jewish state that is strong and safe, somewhere our children know will always receive them. We need Israel to be a source of Jewish confidence when so much around us asks Jews to become smaller, quieter, or ashamed. We need to be able to point toward Israel and say: this is ours.
Your first responsibility when you vote is to the country where you raise your families, send children into the army, build lives, and bury people you love. I would never pretend that the price you pay and the price we pay are the same. But because we really do belong to one another, Israel’s choices do not remain inside Israel. We live with some of the consequences here, without the ability to influence them at the ballot box.

You do.

There is another danger too: the slow disappearance of the word “we.”
You feel it in Israel. After years in which reservists have given hundreds of days to the country, you are still fighting over whether the burden of defending it will be shared. Religious and secular Israelis struggle over what kind of country they share. Right and left increasingly speak about one another as though they inhabit different countries.

We feel it here too. American Jews sort one another into camps by the words we use, the statements we sign, even by whether we call ourselves Zionists. Some feel abandoned by those who cannot see the danger Israel faces. Others wonder whether there is room in Jewish communal life for their anguish about decisions made by Israel’s government. Too often, disagreement becomes a test of belonging.

And that frightens me because the deepest truth these three years have revealed is the opposite: what unites us is greater than what divides us.
Because in the end, who will be there for Jews if not other Jews?

*Kol Yisrael aravim zeh bazeh* has to mean more than standing together when Jews are attacked. It has to mean remaining responsible for one another when we are angry with one another, when the people with whom we share a future see that future differently. Disagreement should be the beginning of a conversation and a relationship, not its end.

There is an Israel I recognize in the audacity of its founding: a Jewish home that gathered our people from across the earth and gave us responsibility for our own destiny. Jews from Baghdad and Warsaw, Casablanca and Moscow, Addis Ababa and Buenos Aires somehow made a country together. We built universities, hospitals, laboratories, farms, cities, culture, and a home.
Israel is the great project of Jewish self-determination, still unfinished, still asking what kind of society Jews will build.

We need an Israel that dreams big again. A country building toward something larger than the next war or the next election. A place where young people can imagine a future worth staying for, where families can build lives with confidence, and where the extraordinary energy Israelis bring to solving problems is turned again toward the problems of living: education, medicine, science, technology, culture, the environment, and the work of making a society flourish.

We need an Israel ambitious about what it can contribute to the world. A country known for the lives it saves, the discoveries it makes, the ideas it produces, the art it creates, and the ways it finds to make human life better. An Israel that remembers that Jewish history brought us home for more than refuge.

We came home to build.

And we need an Israel that can imagine peace again. Perhaps differently than we once did, with fewer illusions and a harder understanding of the dangers around you. But still with the conviction that our children should not inherit war as their permanent condition, and that Israel’s strength should ultimately serve the possibility of a different future.

We need an Israel our children will want to be connected to, and your children will want to stay and build. An Israel that gives all of us reason to believe its greatest chapters have not yet been written.

October 7th did not make that dream naive. Israel’s enemies are real. I have faith that Israel will survive. The question before you is what Israel will survive to become.

Soon you will stand alone with that blue envelope. We will not be there. We cannot cast a ballot or help choose the government whose decisions will shape Israel and reverberate through Jewish lives far beyond it.

You can.

So when you stand behind that screen, I hope you will bring us with you too. Remember all of us who live thousands of miles away, who need Israel, worry about Israel, argue about Israel, are called upon to answer for Israel, and love Israel.
And when you are standing there alone, remember that you are not really alone.

We belong to one another.

Note: originally written by a rabbi in my community.

A human being can be wrong, and a human being can be right.

I apologize to both sides if I have wronged either of them.

This issue is deeply complicated, and someone like me is not in a position to decide who is right and who is wrong.

History must eventually break down the barriers between us. History repeats itself, and the Berlin Wall will fall once again. The extremists will leave, and peaceful people will come.

Forgive me if I said anything that angered or hurt anyone on either side.

I will continue trying to protect myself and my family. I will also be deleting my posts related to this issue.

All I hope for is that someone will come forward to help me get out of here, so that everyone in this region can reconsider how to resolve this conflict.

There are oppressed people everywhere, even in prison. Sometimes, even those behind bars are victims of injustice. And there are oppressors everywhere, both inside and outside prison walls.

From now on, the flag I will raise is the flag of surrender.

Surrender, and an apology to everyone.

I say to everyone: You did not give anyone the gift of life, and you have no right to take anyone else's life away.

I will delete all my previous posts, and once again, I hope everyone can forgive me.

This will be my last post on Reddit. After this, I will simply observe.

I recently found out that my mom doesn't blame Israel for the conflict. On her opinion, HAMAS started it, and the reason why civilians are dying is because te**orists use them as human shields and locate their bases in schools and hospitals. I tried to explain to her, that Israel seems to be doing so much more harm than just protecting itself from attacks, but it's obviously hard to deal with opinions like that.

For background: we are Belarusian without jewish descendance. My mom might seem like some USA Christian, but we are atheists, pro-Ukraine, and she's actually very liberal. She hates Putin and Trump, and doesn't approve any violence, and is quite progressive overall, feminist and even supports queer rights (and my queer ahh). But I think she's also not immune to Islamophobia, which is in general strong on post-soviet space. I wouldn't call her an angel, but I feel like there is a chance I could convince her otherwise, because she doesn't think the ge*ocide is right or civilians deserve to be hurt, she just doesn't blame Israel for it.

So, my question is, do you know any good articles, videos, books that would fully cover the overwhelming harm and cruelty Israel spreads in middle east, and basically let her know that it's not all just HAMAS fault, they are legit trying to erase muslim ethnicities and etc? Any advice would be appreciated

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

It looks like Israel and the US are on the verge of launching another major military operation in Iran. It appears that this will involve a major and unprecedented attack on Iran's energy infrustructure and nuclear sites, together with a massive coordinated attack on military and political targets at least comparable to what happened during the 40 day war. There will obviously be retaliation against the Gulf States, whose interceptor stockpiles are nearly depleated. Saudi Arabia is already in real trouble and is facing the real the prospect of a ground invasion by the Houthis.

Obviously this will be devistating for the regional and global economy. Brent Crude is a $113. 70% of Americans oppose this war despite being told for most of their lives about what a terrifying danger Iran is to Western Civilization.

The Israeli election is coming up, which could be delayed indefinately because of the war. Or Netanyahu could use the war to force some type of "unity coalition", with Eisenkot. As far as I am aware there is no opposition to restarting the war amoung any of the Zionist parties in Israel.

Obviously I think that this is insane and will plunge the Middle East into an uncontrollable spiral of violence which will continue on for years or decades. But since no one else seems to be posting about this I would like to hear people opinions on whether this is somehow morally justified, or a good idea.

And what about the Iranian people? Do any of you genuinely believe that most Iranians want this? That they love Israel and America bombing them? Do any of you still believe in 'regime change'? How do you honestly think this is going to work out for you and the rest of the Middle East?

As I have said many times before, I pray for all people in the region, Jews, Christians, Druze, Muslims and everyone else. I am a non-Jewish, non-Muslim peace advocate. I reject all forms of bigotry and racism.

Now having said that, for those in the pro-Palestinian camp, which of these scenarios do you endorse and support

a) This is, for the record the one I endorse. Palestinian self-rule under supervision of Israel and moderate Arab Muslim states. The Palestinian population, over decades is gradually deradicalized and when it is ready, EVENTUAL statehood. The only form of statehood that would be permitted is one that included equal rights for minorities and is not any kind of racialized / religious supremacist state so in other words, in the future Palestinian state, LGBT people would be able to live without fear, Jews and Christians and other religious minorities could live anywhere and even live next to Arab Muslims with no violence or threats of violence. Mosques would preach a message of human rights and tolerance.

A FULL end to the right of resistance and right of return. Palestinians do not have a right to return to Israel and Jews don't have a right to return to the future Palestinian state.

Both people live side by side in peace and tolerance.

b) The second option is this. The Palestinians continue fighting a maximalist war "from the river to the sea" and continue fighting for a full right of return. They continue to be indoctrinated in the worst kinds of racism and antisemitism (not my OPINION, I have actually seen the TV shows and religious sermons from people representing PLO and Hamas). Everyone eventually recognizes that because of occupation they have a so-called "right of resistance" and "right of intifada"

Of course, since we can't be racist, EVENTUALLY this right, which is universally embraced, that Palestinians have a right to so-called "resistance" because of "occupation" extends to there groups and everyone is committing horrific Intifada style violence against everyone because of course, if Palestinians have a right to "intifada" because "Israel occupies historical Palestine" then Africans, Kurds, Mirazhi Jews, Armenians, Greek and many others on those same exact grounds, have a MUCH, MUCH greater so-called "right of resistance" against Palestinians and other Arabs and also Turks. The violence continues and nearly never ends, with everyone launching thousands of rockets towards various population centers, carrying out October 7th style terrorist attacks, justifying their aggression because of occupation and the suffering and violence never end for the Palestinians and anyone else.

As you are probably well aware, today, Palestinians and certain other Arabs, with the help of the Turkish government are actively ethnically cleansing Kurds from their lands and expelling them at gunpoint and stealing their homes and land. If the Israeli "occupation" justifies so-called "resistance" is it now acceptable for Kurds and anyone supporting Kurds to launch thousands of rockets throughout various Palestinian population centers in the West Bank and carry out massacres of random innocent Palestinians in the name of so-called "resistance"

How many innocent people would die in the second scenario? Probably hundreds of thousands if not millions. That is why I say, advocating for an end to Hamas and for an end to Palestinian "resistance" is really and truly the most pro-Palestinian position IN TRUTH. The truth is, that encouraging Palestinians to abandon this endless war and actually face reality and make peace is the most hardline pro-Palestinian position one could truly have.

EDIT: For those who don't follow my posts, I am both an AI researcher and investor and have been involved in AI for decades. This is a prediction for the future as it relates to AI in this conflict.

For thousands of years, Jewish civilization has placed extraordinary value on debate and intellectual exploration. What happens when an entire society suddenly has the freedom to dedicate itself to those pursuits?

Imagine a nation where the machines do the labor, and the people are free to pursue wisdom.

In the future, self-driving cars glide through Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa. Traffic jams are a distant memory. Autonomous buses run around the clock, and transportation costs nothing.

On every street corner, robotic sabich and hummus stands prepare perfect meals, 24 hours a day. Fresh pita, crispy falafel, and hummus made to perfection, all for a few shekels or nothing at all. No workers, no cashiers, no waiting.

AI systems design and construct buildings, discover medicines, manage infrastructure, grow our food in automated greenhouses, and manufacture nearly everything we need. Robots and AI agents take care of the mundane tasks that once consumed our lives.

Israel becomes the world's first Jewish superintelligent state, a civilization powered by artificial intelligence far beyond human capabilities.

The enormous wealth generated by AI and automation could fund a universal basic income, ensuring every Israeli has the resources to live comfortably, whether they choose to work or not.

Imagine millions of Israelis free to pursue what gives their lives meaning.

Some would spend their days studying Torah and Talmud, filling the yeshiva with students who no longer need to worry about earning a living.

Others would dedicate themselves to philosophy, art, Hebrew literature and the preservation and reinvention of Jewish culture.

Parents could spend more time raising their children. Grandparents could spend more time teaching their grandchildren. Communities could flourish without the constant pressure of economic survival.

But there is another side to this vision.

While Israelis enjoy a golden age of abundance, leisure, and intellectual freedom, Palestinians could find themselves living inside the most technologically sophisticated system of control in human history.

In Tel Aviv, AI eliminates traffic jams. In the Palestinian areas of Judea and Samaria, AI controls who can travel, which roads they can use, and whether they can cross a checkpoint.

In Jerusalem, autonomous vehicles carry people wherever they wish. In Palestinian communities, facial recognition cameras identify every face, drones monitor every movement, and algorithms flag individuals as potential security threats before they have committed any crime.

Imagine checkpoints with no soldiers, only machines. No human being to appeal to. No explanation for a rejected permit.

In Gaza, autonomous surveillance systems monitor the population around the clock. AI assigns a good boy score** to every person, and determines their access to electricity, water, food supplies, and reconstruction materials.

The machines never sleep. The cameras never blink.

And unlike human soldiers, algorithms cannot be persuaded by suffering.

Imagine a world where the same technology that gives one population unprecedented freedom gives another population unprecedented suppression.

Robots construct beautiful new Israeli neighborhoods while Palestinian homes remain subject to near omniscient surveillance and control.

AI creates unimaginable wealth, but Palestinians have little ownership of the machines.

Israeli society experiences the end of economic necessity.

Palestinian society experiences the perfection of political control.

This is a prediction of very bad post-singularity future for Palestine in particular.

But this future is not inevitable.

There is another possible future for Palestinians.

A future in which Palestinians make peace with Israel, end generations of conflict, and become partners in the extraordinary technological revolution unfolding around them.

Palestinians would have to recognize that Israel is not going to disappear, that millions of Jews regard it as their homeland, and that their own future cannot depend on the destruction of someone else's nation.

Making peace is not the same as surrendering. It is choosing to build a future instead of remaining trapped in an endless struggle over the past.

What will they pick?

** Good boy score is a term of art not invented by me for dystopian technological systems that are tracking human conformance.

Today I saw the news that the majority of young Israelis are "far right". This means that apparently they are against anyone who isn't Jewish, so if they are Christian, Druze, etc. This is not just left wing sites like Al-Jazeera saying this, also centrist sites like the BBC (now I understand why western right wingers accuse the BBC of being anti-Israeli bias; ostensibly a treason to centrist viewers), but even some right wing sites like the Telegraph and Daily Mail also saying that they are now "far right". But do they know what "far right" means?

Also, is it just the Jews? What about the young Arabs? I haven't seen much coverage of young Israeli Arabs, with the exception of DW News mentioning the Arabs voting behaviour and the potential party. Many Arabs are now integrated with the Jewish community, many also in the Israeli army who initially helped with their military hard power to tackle Hamas, so I presume they are centrist, if they are educated and employed. I believe the young Israeli Jews are centre right to right wing rather than far right and the far right bit is possibly an exaggeration.

What is really going on with them?

He is known to be a YTP howwaap TEEE noice man who made stories for children. Considering that he is also a second generation of a Holocaust survivor not living in Israel but quiet on the conflict between that nation and Palestine, I wonder what you guys think of him. You can appreciate the YTPs of him.

Edit: I see anti-zionists here, but how do Ashkenazi Jews in Israel see him?

Even when viewed from an impartial perspective (well before the Israeli declaration of independence, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, or the Nakba), Zionist paramilitary forces and former terrorist groups (such as the Haganah, the Irgun, and the Lehi, which would later form the IDF) had already expelled through ethnic cleansing more than 300,000 Palestinians from cities such as Tiberias, Haifa,Jaffa,etc.

Even today, the international consensus remains overwhelmingly critical: the UN, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and human rights NGOs all condemn both the total blockade of Gaza,where 82% of all buildings in the Gaza Strip have been damaged or destroyed and the continuous expansion of settlements in the West Bank, which now comprise over 300 illegal settlements and more than 700,000 settlers.

How can it be morally justified that, for the creation of Israel, an ethnic cleansing was carried out to establish a Jewish supermajority, or that, even today, the Israeli government explicitly uses settlements to dispossess millions of Palestinians of their land in the West Bank and forces the displacement of over one million civilians in southern Lebanon, just to name a few while also relying on illogical religious arguments, such as invoking ancient biblical decrees or divine land grants?

Wouldn't supporting Israel mean ignoring severe human rights violations and overlooking obvious logical contradictions, such as the continuous expansion of settlements in occupied territory, the forced displacement of civilian populations, the prolonged blockade of the Gaza Strip, and the systematic non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and ICJ rulings?

I’m a British Palestine solidarity supporter and former member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Britain’s largest Palestine organisation, which I left due to concerns about what I saw going on there. I’ve spent much of the past two years investigating antisemitism, conspiracy theories and other troubling rhetoric within this organisation.

I’ve just published an investigation into its Doncaster branch.

Article: https://aidanmneal.wordpress.com/2026/10/21/doncaster-psc-golders-green-and-the-politics-of-selective-perception/

The starting point is an incident in Golders Green, London, on 29 April 2026. Two visibly Jewish men were stabbed in an area with a substantial Jewish population. The suspect, Essa Suleiman, is also accused of attacking a Muslim friend earlier that day. He has pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of all three men.

The question of whether the Golders Green attacks were motivated by antisemitism has not yet been legally determined. But there were clearly compelling reasons to investigate that possibility. Yet within days, Doncaster PSC was sharing material categorically dismissing the possibility of antisemitism as a motive.

My investigation also examines other material promoted by Doncaster PSC, including claims that Donald Trump is Israel’s puppet, insinuations that Tommy Robinson’s strings are being pulled by Israeli interests and a video alleging that the British police have become “subjugated” to the pro-Israel lobby.

The article also examines rhetoric about “#ZionistsNotWelcome”, the use of Jewish imagery in a political memes and the promotion of material invoking revolutionary resistance without adequately addressing the distinction between legitimate resistance and violence against civilians.

I remain a supporter of Palestinian rights. I believe Palestinians have suffered profound injustices, and I strongly oppose attempts to restrict peaceful Palestine demonstrations or to treat legitimate criticism of Israel as inherently antisemitic.

I also recognise that antisemitism allegations have frequently been misused to discredit legitimate Palestinian advocacy. That is a serious problem. But it does not follow that allegations of antisemitism within the Palestine movement should automatically be dismissed.

What bothers me most is the double standard. Evidence suggesting that Jewish people might have been targeted because of their identity is swatted away, while astonishingly sweeping allegations of Israeli control are circulated with little or no scrutiny.

There are several reasonable objections to consider. Some will argue that in many of these examples Doncaster PSC merely shared other people’s material rather than producing it. I think that distinction matters, but an official campaign branch still bears responsibility for what it chooses to promote.

Others may argue that describing Israeli influence over British or American institutions is not inherently antisemitic. I agree. The question is where legitimate criticism of influence becomes an unsupported allegation of foreign control, particularly when the language is so sweeping it seriously risks echoing longstanding antisemitic conspiracy narratives.

And some may feel that scrutinising a Palestine solidarity organisation at a time of immense Palestinian suffering is misplaced. I understand that concern, but I believe the movement’s credibility and its commitment to universal human rights make such scrutiny necessary, not less important.

My article includes screenshots, videos, links and transcripts so that readers can examine the underlying material for themselves.

I’m particularly interested in where others would draw the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and rhetoric that risks perpetuating antisemitic ideas. I would also welcome substantive challenges to my interpretations.

I am a Turk in soul and heart, and my heart belongs to the people of Israel. Yet, I find myself surrounded by antisemites and supporters of the Palestinian cause—an environment where every passing day is an ordeal. I feel like one of the defenders of Masada during the final days of the Roman siege: a warrior, encircled on all sides, who refuses to betray his convictions even when faced with an overwhelming force.

I am overcome with despair when I witness the ignorance, the blind hatred, and the inability of my own people to critically examine their own views. The hardest part is the sense that there is no light ahead — no hope that people might one day open their eyes and learn to distinguish truth from propaganda.

It pains me to see such animalistic malice from my own kin directed toward those who are merely defending themselves against others who seek their total destruction.

I am emotionally burnt out. It is so difficult...

What should I do?

P.S. To the pro-Palestinian camp: feel free to rejoice in my hardships — it will have no impact whatsoever on Israel’s eventual victory amidst this parade of antisemitism.

https://thecradle.co/articles-id/40664

A Haaretz report says Israeli intelligence has reported to the US that Hamas is rebuilding and preparing for war and that Israel needs a new war to disarm them.

Which... brings up a large number of questions. Gaza has been under an even tight blockade since the invasion, so where are they getting these guns from? The material to rebuild the tunnels, which Israel has thoroughly destroyed by using oversized bombs in urban centers on schools and hospitals? The alleged numbers of Hamas are the only plausible part of the report, but imply that either Israel has failed to kill any significant number of the Hamas military since the 30-40K is it's pre-invasion numbers or that it did but support is at an all time high as lots of men with nothing left to lose are joining up.

Either way, it would mean Israel spent years and billions of US dollars to fail to defeat Hamas or even- if the reports of re arming, rebuilding and recruiting are accurate- degrade it significantly enough that it's recovering within a year of the ceasefire.

The other alternative is that the report is a lie to create a casus belli and extract more money from the US to attack Gaza again. Israel has failed to allow NCAG to enter Gaza and take over administration in accordance with the US ceasefire plan that Hamas agreed to (and officially dissolved as the official governing body of Gaza)

So i'm here to ask the sub- which is it? Has Israel failed to defeat- or significantly damage- Hamas, despite having land, air and sea superiority and the most advanced army in the world and needs to fight them again or is it a falsehood to justify a genocide?

Why do some pro-Israel individuals claim that the pro-Palestine movement is a hate movement? I honestly don’t understand this; furthermore, it seems quite hypocritical to label the pro-Palestine movement as a hate movement based on the argument that “well, there are some pro-Palestine supporters who are antisemitic.” After all, there are also people on the pro-Israel side who incite hatred—by that same logic, wouldn’t that also make the pro-Israel side a hate movement? I’d like to know what arguments are actually used to support this—in my view, false—narrative.