Hamas Attacks, Israel Responds Part III. Is It Finally Over?

You, genocide denier is lecturing me? Wow...you're funny

 

If those Palestinians see a guy with a "I love IDF" flag punches will be thrown. But the people who bring HAMAS flags and chants are more than welcomed.

I so far have no seen pro palestine supporters shout at people who are in your face HAMAS supporters but I have seen pro palestine supporters attack a guy with an eff offf HAMAS shirt

If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis. "

If that is true for the above the same is true for the Palestinian protestors

I moved the discussion here

 

One can believe in Israel's right to exist and not be a Zionist. These are two different things.

 

States dont have an inherent right to exist. Thats not what international law says. Nations encompassing people belonging to a certain ethnic, cultural or other group have the right to self determination. And that self determination can take the form of a state, or some type of autonomic region within a state or confederation etc etc.

Israel in and of itself doesnt have a right to exist in absolute terms. Im not going into Zionism this or that, because it doesnt really penetrate the core of the issue, but rather reduces the discussion to caricature preconceived notions and accusations. It is possible to have a more intellectual debate.

Jews have the right to self determination. Palestinians have the right to self determination. If one of those nations form a state that infringes on the other nations/peoples right to self determination, that is a big problem and I would argue does NOT have a right to exist. And no, that doesnt mean the eradication of that group from the land with which it shares with the other, but rather a change in the polity/regime running that state.

But we are so way beyond that now, because we are not merely talking about a state that infringes on Palestinians right to self determination. We are talking about a regime that denies them rights on a very basic level and practices various levels of discrimnation and apartheid within different territories. Its the least bad in Israel "proper" with Arab citizens (although its undoubtedly becoming worse even for them). Then comes the West Bank with Palestinians living in ever decreasing ethnic and walled enclaves/bantustans, with Palestinians having to go through military checkpoints and life being barely bearable under such conditions. Not to mention being subjected to daily attacks by fanatical messianic settlers. And no one is fooled and believes the PA is the actual authority there, its the subcontractor of the Israeli occupation.

At last we now have Gaza where a live streamed genocide and mass murder is taking place. Including over 20 thousand kids.
For an increasing number of many people around the world its not incumbent upon us to defend our objection to the existence of such a state (under current regime), but rather incumbent upon the rest of you to defend the opposite notion.

 

States based on ethnic-religious beliefs especially don't have an inherent right to exist, especially in the 21st century. It's an outdated mode of thinking that doesn't extend equality to all people. As I've stated before American Manifest Destiny is Lebensraum is "Chosen People".

Hell, if we used the same logic in America it would mean that Native Americans would be entitled to well, the entirety of the United States. Nearly every single one of the treaties that the American Government signed with Native American tribes were violated.

 

I have no clue who that is but it is irrelevant

If Adolf Stalin himself would show me a true video of something I don't care. I can see for myself so the messager is irrelevant for me. Sure if the video is false, from another time, edited to hell or pure AI fair enough but if you show me a true video of anything I can judge it for myself

 

Twitter is full of videos of the same protests many in dutch. I apparently chose wrong but I chose it because it is a repost and translation of a dutch guy

Viering van #Chanoeka in het #Concertgebouw in #Amsterdam. Naast het Concertgebouw en op het #Museumplein zijn demonstraties vanwege het optreden van de Chief Cantor van het IDF, Shai Abramson.⁰#Hanukkah #Chanukah #ChanoekaConcert pic.twitter.com/LRzBk1kgHe

— Bob van Keulen (@BobHGL) December 14, 2025

@feyenoordsoccerfan could easily say it is fake and that is the end of it

I don't believe in disregarding what one says when it is factual. Again I don't know the guy but I would probably would disregard his "trust me bro" takes but as long as the video or news is REAL does not make it less true just because a piece of shit said it

 

A Zionist is someone for whom colonialism - ie the establishment and expansion of Israel on an already inhabited land, through the expulsion, the marginalization or the murder of its inhabitants- poses no problem in principle.

 

Thanks for explaining.

That’s not my own definition of Zionism, however. To me Zionism is the belief in a Jewish state.

 

The distinction isn't between the right of a nation to self-determination vs the right of a state to exist.

The distinction is between the right of people to self-determination and the right of a state to exist. When a state's existence is predicated on denying people self-determination (as is the case with Israel), that state shouldn't exist in its current form. That's not the same as saying there should be mass violence against civilians, because it isn't. It's saying that those who are denied rights, representation, and self-determination should be granted rights, representation, and self-determination.

If that means that the state of Israel doesn't exist in its current form? So what. The political character of states changes all the time.

 

My view is, as a general principle or rule, what Israel is, is a bad idea.

But as a practical matter, given the last 1950 years of Jewish history, Israel is better for the world than no Israel.

I’m a pragmatist.

 

In my post I have used nation/people interchangeably. Perhaps wrongly or confusingly so, but I think you got the gist of what I meant.

As to your original question, I dont have a clear answer to that.
It is very challenging. I guess the most boring answer would be that we have open and honest discourse and exchange of ideas with one another, but how do we increase awareness and understanding on a macro level in international politics, so that distinction becomes clear?
I dont know. I dont have all the answers.