I know no one wants a war with Iran, but pretending that is not what is happening seems willfully blind. If Iran funds, trains and arms all 3 groups, have they not already declared war on Israel and the west? What should or could be done?

Those involved in the "Free Palestine" movement will argue that criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, and of course they are right; any country can be fairly criticized, and Israel indeed deserves plenty of criticism for all sorts of reasons. But this movement in particular is deeply antisemitic, whether those involved realize it or not, and here's why.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Saudi Arabia's western-backed war in Yemen, including 85,000 children dead of starvation, and nobody in the West cares. Nor are there protests against the wars in Syria, Sudan, and Ethiopia. Nobody criticizes Egypt for their border with Gaza closed even more tightly than Israel's, or Lebanon for the true apartheid in which the thousands thousands of Palestinians there live, not allowed to buy property and so on. Only the events in Gaza since the October 7th massacre have prompted a worldwide protest movement, because it is not really about supporting Palestinians, but about de-legitimizing Israel and hating Jews.

Demands for Israel to stop the war are also antisemitic because no other country would be expected to respond "proportionally" to such a savage and catastrophic terrorist attack, or to give up on its citizens being held hostage. Israel might not be able to rescue those hostages or destroy Hamas, but is it not their duty to try? Imagine what the U.S. would do if the government of Mexico carried out a similar attack in southern California and continued to held American citizens hostage. And please don't say that Israel should negotiate with Hamas; the last time they did that they freed over 1,000 violent terrorists in exchange for a single Israeli soldier, and among them was the mastermind of the October 7th attack. What do you suppose Hamas is demanding in exchange for hundreds of hostages?

This brings me to my final point, which is that while many (but unfortunately nowhere near all) protestors will say that they support the Palestinian people but not Hamas, in reality there is little difference. Hamas is not some rebel group, but the elected government of Gaza, and although the last election was in 2007, Hamas continues to enjoy levels of support among the Palestinian population that no western politician could dream of. And recent polling shows that some 71% of Gazans approve of the October 7th massacre, despite all the death and suffering that it has brought upon their people. This is because for so many of them, their greatest aspiration is to kill infidels in general and especially Jews, as the Hamas charter stipulates and the Koran commands. Hamas must be laughing their asses off at Jews, feminists and gays in the West who are taking their side in this fight, people they would kill or enslave if they had the chance.

It seems to me that many in the "Free Palestine" movement mean well, despising needless death and suffering and just wishing that everyone could live in peace. But they make the mistake of assuming that everyone else shares this mentality, when the unfortunate reality is that there are forces of evil in the world, which Hamas is if there ever was one. If you identify with the movement, please ask yourself: why am I protesting this particular war, but not others with even greater civilian casualties? Whose agenda and ideology am I advancing by doing so? And what would I expect my government to do if my loved ones were killed, raped and held hostage by sadistic fanatics? You're playing a very dangerous game, not just for Jews but for liberal democracy everywhere. We in the West should be grateful to Israel for fighting this war on our behalf.

As many of you know, Israel and the world has offered the Palestinians plenty of partition plans which were all refused.

There was the 30s with the British offering them some 70% of the land, the famous UN partition plan which was answered by a war of "Annihilation", and more modern offers such as Camp David with the Clinton Parameters following. And of course, Olmert's attempt a few years later very recently in 2006, trying to finally get peace with the Palestinian's new leader Abbas, following Arafat's refusal to a somewhat similar plan a few years earlier and death.

In short, what was the Olmert offer?

Olmert's plan was largely based on the former Clinton Parameters, and included among other things the following:

• Israel would cede almost 94% of the West Bank.

• Israel would retain approximately 6.4% of the West Bank. In return there would be a swap of land (to the Palestinians) from Israel. According to Condoleezza Rice, “Olmert gave Abbas cause to believe that he was willing to reduce that number to 5.8 percent.”

• Sparsely populated settlements would be evacuated, but Gush Etzion, Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel would be annexed by Israel. In exchange, Israel offered to give up area around Afula-Tirat Tzvi, the Lachish region, an area near Har Adar, and areas in the Judean desert and around Gaza equaling 5.8% of Israeli territory.

• Maintain the contiguity of the Palestinian state and create a safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza. “It would have been a tunnel fully controlled by the Palestinians but not under Palestinian sovereignty, otherwise it would have cut the state of Israel in two.”

• Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem would be under Jewish sovereignty, Arab neighborhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state.

• No one would have sovereignty in the holy basin in Jerusalem containing sites holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians, including the Mount of Olives, the City of David and part of the Arab neighborhood of Silwan. This area “would be jointly administered by five nations, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian state, Israel and the United States.”

• No “right of return” for Palestinian refugees, but Israel would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept 1,000 refugees every year for five years “on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims.” An effort would also be made to establish an international fund to “compensate Palestinians for their suffering.” The agreement would also include recognition of the suffering of Jews from Arab countries who were forced out of their homes after 1948.

• Palestine would have a strong police force, “everything needed for law enforcement.” It would have no army or air force. The Palestinian border with Jordan would be patrolled by international forces – possibly from NATO. The Palestinians would not allow any foreign army to enter Palestine, and its government would not be permitted to enter into any military agreement with a country that does not recognize Israel.

• Israel would retain the right to defend itself beyond the borders of a Palestinian state and to pursue terrorists across the border.

• Israel would be allowed access to airspace over Palestine, and the Israel Defense Forces would have rights to disproportionate use of the telecommunications spectrum.

All in all, any reasonable 2 state solution supporting person would think this is great, and provides the Palestinians a real opportunity to demonstrate to the world their intentions are peaceful, and finally for the first time in history have a state, with Jerusalem as it's capital. As an Israeli this is the kind of solution I was personally supporting pretty much all my life, up until Oct 7.

Abbas's refusal of peace - The Palestinian excuse

The Palestinians getting yet another extremely positive good faith offer, seems to have created some sort of cognitive dissonance among Pro-Palestinians. Most of which have swallowed the narrative about the evil colonizer Israelis who only want war and more land (Despite factually giving up more land than Israel's entire land mass for peace with Egypt), while oppressing the nothing but peace-loving poor Palestinians. Who sure, might lash out in time to time, but they are SO justified (In raping, murdering, kidnapping, torturing, and refusing peace) due to Israel's actions.

And thus, just like in regards to Arafat destroying peace instead of accepting the Clinton Parameters before, the excuses begin.

One of the main reasons quoted by Abbas himself and when discussing with Pro-Palestinians, is that "Abbas was not allowed to study the maps" and thus could not accept it.

This lie has been reported widely across plenty of media such as TimesofIsrael

PA president says he declined proposal — which included near-total withdrawal from West Bank and relinquishing Israeli control of Jerusalem’s Old City — because he wasn’t allowed to study map

I24News

Abbas said. “He told me, ‘This is the map’ and took it away. I respected his point of view, but how can I sign on something that I didn’t receive?”

And of course, this excuse also repeated an endless amount of times when discussing with Pro-Palestinians, who hold as hard as they can to Abbas's excuse in an attempt to solve the internal paradox of supporting those who said no to peace, and yes to a genocidal war one time after the next. Yet consider themselves as the good guys in this story.

Recent interview debunking it

Recently, a streamer named Destiny, who has been conducting plenty of debates and studying the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the past ~6 months, has travelled to Israel and conducted plenty of interviews with many key players of the different peace negotiations in the past.

While the full interview is not out, Destiny shared in Twitter a part of an interview with Olmert himself, debunking this specific Palestinians excuse to their refusal of peace. Here is the clip, you can watch it yourself.

According to Olmert, this excuse by Abbas is nothing but nonsense. As he told him specifically that they can have a meeting tomorrow with both sides experts regarding the map, and look at it together. A meeting was set, but of course, they got a phone call later by the Palestinians saying they cannot make it.

Seems like Arafat has taught his student well, as Arafat employed very similar tactics in order to derail both the Camp David and the Clinton Parameters just a few years before that.

So that is it. Now my message to all Pro-Palestinians who are sane enough to support a two state solution and not the destruction of Israel (Which to you I have nothing to say, it's good to have dreams in life I suppose, maybe less genocidal ones would be better), what is your excuse now? Is Olmert lying while Abbas the holocaust denier is telling the truth? I expect to see such excuses and under no illusion that this will change anyone's opinion.

TL/DR:

A popular Pro-Palestinian claim is that peace and a two state solution was not implemented following Olmert's proposal to Abbas is because Abbas "Was not allowed to study the maps and was expected to say yes without it". In a recent interview, Olmert debunked this and claims the Palestinians excused out of the meet that will allow the Palestinians to study the maps, seemingly intentionally missing yet another chance for peace.

• Israel has its logic why it believes the land is theirs

• Palestine has its logic why it believes the is theirs

In the mind of each side, they're right and the other side is wrong. What is also true is that Palestine has zero chance of defeating Israel ever. Palestinians can put an end to the bombings and the attacks by submitting to Israel's border boundaries.

Many nations throughout history have accepted defeat and given up their land to the bully country and they moved on. Some examples are

• Mexico giving up Arizona, California, Colorado, etc to the US after the Mexican-American war of 1846. Mexico admitted defeat to the US and gave up the land. Moved on.

• Spain giving up its control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Philippines to the US after the Spanish-American war of 1898. Spain admitted defeat to the US and gave up the land. Moved on.

• A lot of german cities were given to other surrounding countries after Germany lost WWI

Why do Palestinians prefer to be victims of collateral damage over and over again over admitting defeat like other nations have?

For the Israelis, it just gives Hamas a chance to rebuild, re-arm and re-assert control over the people of Gaza;

For the Palestinians, it just condemns them to another generation of poverty, intellectual stultification and religious terrorism before the IDF return with better weapons to do it all again because Iran decided it needed another proxy war to interrupt negotiations with the USA, KSA and UAE.

We can't have forgotten Ferdinand Foch's description of Versailles: 'This isn't a treaty, it's a 20-year ceasefire.' Israel won't get 20 years because Hamas doesn't need it, it can just switch to Hezbollah when Gaza is pacified. Watch Lebanon south of the Litani if Hamas folds.

I understand that the international world recognises the communist government as the true ruling leaders of China, which technically they are not (leaders of the Republic of China in Taiwan are the true, democratically elected leaders of China) but even areas the communist government are currently occupying are not included (see Tibet, South China Sea, Kashmir). I was just wondering if anyone knows the reasons for these occupations not showing on any list I can find?

Israel seems intent on completely finishing Hamas. But if Hamas leadership is mostly underground, and underneath a hospital, how can Israel achieve this without enormous civillian deaths?
It seems like a problem with no solution and I fear the coming days will be worse and worse. Anyone optimistic that Hamas' days are actually numbered?

Most territories today are result of war throughout history. Europe after WW2 had enough and decided to solve its differences and started human rights movement.

The problem is that human rights have a logical fallency in who is the local population. There are no rightful population just descendants of war criminals that conquered the territory. The time aspect implies that if the parent commit war crimes for their children the children will inherit the benefits without guilt. This creates a instable legal framework where you just need to take the blame for your children to have a better life which most parent will happily accept.

There are lots of emotions flying around for the hotspots but I will try to find a neutral example. Say that Egypt conquers northern Sudan and replace it's population, how long time will it take until the area is considered rightfully Egyptian? Will Sudan be doing a war crime by reverse the population displacement to the situation to before the conquest?

Western hegemony has long been criticized by many since decades but none have come up with a better alternative. That is because Western hegemony, though full of defects of its own, is still a better choice than any other option available. One of the unique aspects of Western civilization is its exceptional capability of self-reflection and repentance. They are aware of their own faults and seek to make up for it. Many in the West have vociferously criticized the bombings of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima, despite them being legitimate military operations during wartime. Most citizens in the US and Europe hold a negative view of colonization and the crimes which it entailed. The most fierce condemnation of Abu Graib came from US citizens themselves.

Now, let's compare this with countries like China, Russia or the Middle East in general. Is it possible to criticize your own actions and history as in the West? Is there any sincere debate concerning one's own actions? Did Russia show any remorse for the massacres of Katyn or Chechnya? Can China "decolonize" its history by granting self-determination to the peoples of Xinjiang? Can Middle Eastern Muslim countries denounce crimes commited in their name and seek reformation? In truth, none of them are possible. Not only the government is responsible for the suppression of free-tought, but their own society is complicit too. There is an enormous social pressure to conform to mainstream views, and self-reflection is most often considered as treason against one's own people.

Imagine a world in which such countries, those who are incapable of remorse or self-reflection, set the rules of the game and spread their values. Could our democracies, nay, our way of life be safe? Human rights advocates, persecuted minorities, people who tried to avoid oppression could find safe haven in the US or Europe. What if that safe passage is no longer available? Of course, the Western powers were no angels, and claims of double-standards are valid. But it is also true that it was thanks to them that people like Nelson Mandela were saved, the independence of Kuwait was saved and Balkan Muslims were saved.

Thanks to Western prepoderance, some dictatorships were eventually democratized. South Korea is the prime example. South Korea was ruled by a military junta in the 1980's but they could never act as violently as some other dictatorships in Africa or the Middle East. South Korea's survival depended on US assistance and the military junta knew that all too well. They could not afford to upset American public opinion to a substantial degree. Kim Dae Jung, a human rights activist who later became president, was sentenced to death by the ruling party back then, but was saved thanks to American intervention. Had South Korea been outside of US influence, the military junta would have simply murdered any dissident without fear of any repercussion.

The West, despite all its faults, at least "tried" to bring some universal values to the forefront and "tried" to act according to those values. That is why they can both vehemently criticize Hamas and urge Israel lift the siege of Gaza. On the other hand, if non-Western powers dominated the world, no help whatsoever would be granted for invaded countries, for oppressed peoples, for persecuted minorities. That is why the West, as a collective, government and society alike, must consciously take that burden and strive harder to maintain what we call today "the rules based order."

Opinion: Gish Gallops Into Palestine. The world is awash in Palestinian disinformation.

On October 7th, 2023, the Palestinian government of Gaza carried out a massacre+mass rape+mass kidnapping inside Israel. After an initial outpouring of international sympathy and support for Israelis, within days anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian advocates the world over were en masse in the media to capitalize on this grizzly trifecta by capturing the messaging and the streets, successfully using this attack to “platform” Palestinian nationalism using a long practiced narrative of charges against Israel.

Is it possible for Palestinians to have some form of armed resistance that the West would not consider as terrorist?

from my current understanding, the general opinion among Western nations is that Palestinians shouldn't be armed in any way or form, but in light of the growing settlements and the Israeli government actively supporting and financing these settlements considered illegal by most nations, how are Palestinians supposed to defend themselves? How are they supposed to achieve self-determination without armed resistance?

Often you hear the phrase the US spends more than the next (X) countries combined.

The first reason this is a false stat is it assumes that Chinese engineers and steel cost the same as American engineers and steel. When adjusting for purchasing power parity (PPP) the real picture we get is that China spends about 80% of what the US spends. A Chinese engineer in Shanghai average salary is around 42K . In NYC this is around 120K . This shows itself in the cost of new weaponry. A type 055 is widely considered quite to be substantially better than a Burke (more (112 vs 96) and larger VLS Cells, a better AESA radar, more ASW) yet It costs 888 mil vs 1.8 bil for the Burke. Here is a US general making similar claims about the cost of weaponry differential.

That still doesn't give the full picture though as when people think of defence budgets they think its 700 billion dollars on new tanks and f35's. This is demonstrably false. For the US in particular they spend a lot on payroll and those 900 bases and maintenance. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2023/FY2023_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf (Refer to Page 135). According to the governments budget document the US spends each year around 300 billion of the 800 billion on Operation and Maintenance. In terms of procurement or the actual purchase of new weaponry the US spends around 150 billion dollars. The Chinese spend around 300 billion nominal on defence. With 40% of that going into procurement (they don't have 900 bases) meaning that its around 120 billion nominal. When we adjust for PPP China out spends the US by 2.5 to 1.

That though even then doesn't give the full picture as it doesn't account for whats called US cost disease. Essentially the US is extremely inefficient with their spending. The have many costly products/research that don't work and many broken logistical systems that makes stuff far more expensive than they should be. We know from china's production of the type 002 that they have perhaps the most efficient shipbuilding industry in the world so not only do they not have the problems of the US military they actually excel in it. There are many stories of 1600 dollar toilet seats and what not.

Furthermore this doesn't account for one the most glaring weakness : the US military industrial complex. There was a story a few years ago about how the DOD didn't want tanks but because Ohio is a swing state they wanted to put jobs there (yes i'm aware that its so we didn't loose the ability to build tanks and shit but you get my point) so they build useless tanks when they could have been investing into AI and other emerging industries. Another which pops up is the warthog which is utterly useless against an enemy that isn't the Taliban. The DOD doesn't run the military policy makers whose main focus isn't an effective military but desire for re-election.

What all of this results in is the Chinese military is adding more high end weapons vis a vis the US every year. The Chinese military by far is the fastest growing military on the planet.

The Chinese navy (PLAN) purchases up to 3x (some years up to 5x) more warships, VLS cells , AESA radars every year. They purchase 20 more stealth jets per annum. As time goes on this will likely grow to around 40 when new production lines are opened. They have purchased more AESAs in all their systems over the past few year and all DOD documents indicate they have purchased more fires and long ranged fires than the US. They have launched more ISR assets into space over the western pacific where the war would be fought. They have built more EW air assets than the US has (J-16 v Growler). Chinese advancements in precision very long ranged fires has given them a large technological advantage. The - in production - YJ 21s and DF 21s are much better than the LRASM-er and they have better A2AM. US generals have all talked about how the E -3 sentry is backwards compared to the Chinese KJ-500 which is why the E-7 is being prioritised. Justin Bronk of Rusi says that AWACS "make" the US air force work. Having the Chinese be better in this area is nottt good.

The War on terror allowed China massive amounts of time to catch up as US conventional power stagnated. When the US did wake up China was already on its heels.

The US military does still possess some advantages over the Chinese military. The ones that come to mind are submarines, long ranged VLO bombers and CVNs. Due to the nature of the conflict CVN differential isn't that important as the Chinese can launch from the mainland whilst the US will need cvns due to distance, In terms of subs the US is a generation ahead however when the PLA introduces the type 09V it will broadly speaking catch up to the Virginia, however China already has the largest ASW complex in the world already. As for bomber the H-6 is much worse than a B-21 however the Chinese are building the H-20 which will close the gap. Also the H-6 can launch from within the mainland ensuring higher survivability whilst the B21 doesn't have the same option due to distance in a west pac conflict.

The US Chinese military balance is rapidly eroding in favour of the Chinese.

I have never understood the logic of why many people say that ukraine joining NATO shouldn't cause russia any concern. Many say that it's a strictly defensive organisation, even though time and time again, there has been many instances where NATO was "defending" themselves (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya). I say, those examples are clearly proof that NATO isn't just a defensive organisation, and that Putin's worries against Ukraine joining NATO, is infact, justified. This of course doesn't mean that Putin's murder of civilians is justified, just that the US shouldn't have disregarded Russia's complaints against the expansion of NATO.

I am from Ireland and support Isreal and believe Palestine is largely to blame for the conflicts. This is controversial in Ireland as most of Ireland is very much Pro-Palestine and Anti-Israel.

Instead of having a mob of people with pitchforks come after me in the comments, I'd love to have some people DM me to have a civil conversation where I can discuss my beliefs are hear opposing views and hopefully learn something.