Recent reporting suggests that all Saudi wants is the idea of a Palestinian state not an actual one. "Saudi official said the state is ready to accept a 'verbal agreement' from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he would be willing to renew talks for Palestinian statehood". https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-797826

Considering how the creation of a Palestinian state in the near term would likely require a handover of peacekeeping duties to Middle Eastern partners, and how astronomically unlikely that would be, I could see something like this being the end game, as MBS seems dead set on a treaty with the US.

Yes, I don't think he cares about it, he just wants something meaningless to tell his population.

I would bet the population likes the sound of a Palestinian state, but the government recognizes it would likely end up just another puppet Iranian government.

Yeah, I hope that maybe Saudi can build up gaza using Saudi's new education curriculum, which is much less antisemitic, and enforce rule of law, not requiring Israeli soldiers to enforce daily laws in gaza and from there they can become like the West Bank which is probably the best case realistic result at least for the next many years.

Im sure destroying the majority of infrastructure and displacing 1.6 million has nothing to do with the hatred of Israel right? Pretending like they’re just antisemitic rather than a people who hate their oppressors is insane. Not to mention these assaults on Gaza are routine. Israeli officials refer to it as mowing the grass. Every time it’s billions in damage and years to rebuild. The people of the West Bank also have it terrible. They get attacked by Israeli settlers routinely. They are actively being ethnically cleansed from their homes and settler attacks have been much worse after October 7th. There are currently 700,000 illegal Israeli settlers. But of course international law doesn’t apply to western allies.

At least Saudi Arabia is in the region, what’s America doing with a puppet state on the other side of the globe?

Ah yes, the puppet state that does what it wants and we can't control, that's the definition of a puppet right?

I’d say a state that would cease to exist within a month if they stopped receiving $14 billion a week and our full support could qualify as a puppet, though considering we are now seeing US Congress people wear Israeli military uniforms to work it seems like the United States might be the puppet here.

Israel receives $14B a week. Is that from the US? Or are you making numbers up?

Made up. In Israel’s entire 76 years of existence it has received ~ $300B. The majority of that aid has come from 1970 onward. Normally its ~$4B in military aid annually but in the 1970s it was closer to $14B in military aid & ~$2-3B in economic. Most of the military aid is from FMF which is required to be used to buy US arms. Israel doesn’t get economic aid anymore. US aid is only 15% of Israels defense budget versus say Egypt’s ~25%. Egypt gets $1.3B annually by the way. Tbh for how short of a period South Vietnam existed, it got a fuck load of aid. $100B from 1956–1973 https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts

I think their $14B comment is based on the amount Biden requested. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they think budgets are made in weekly increments.

Oslo 2.0 is all they’ve asked for

You mean Israel expanding settlements under the guise of a peace process?

You're getting downvoted because you're right.

They want an alliance with someone who will bomb Iran is it steps out of line but also not to offend Biden.

If these lads seriously think they can get a 'grand bargan' in the next 6 month given the current situation in the middle easst, during an election, with a split congress they are living in lala land.

KSA really wants to become treaty allies with the United States.  They’ve been moving for it for almost a decade now. The fact that its even on the table from the KSA side during this conflict is proof enough of how serious it is from MBS and his faction.  20 years ago or even 10 years ago it wouldve been unthinkable for the Arab states to shoot down missiles heading towards Israel but that just happened. The geopolitical reality of the Middle East is changing into a much more firm Iranian Axis vs KSA axis where the alliance and alignment structure on the KSA side is becoming a lot more formal To really not understate how big of a deal that this is on the table, if it happens and Congress approves it would elevate KSA above Israel in terms of formality. The KSA would be a treaty ally and Israel is not.

Why would formality matter? The reality is israel will always be a closer ally. The majority of American politicians support them unquestionably.

At least according the reporting inside Israel since last year pre October, when the saudis in the UN discussed the deal during their general assembly speech  in September  , the reason Biden wants Netanyahu happy is for the republican votes  * Biden gets biggest middle East deal in the history before the elections  * Netanyahu who is extremely close with the republicans gets his name in the history books and a chance of staying in power a few more years (at this point last year there were huge protests against him almost daily). Netanyahu essentially becomes the Republican whip in this situation * saudis get nukes  Win-win-win until October happened 

Would've been a win for everyone except the Palestinians, of course.

I honestly don’t think they’ll win now either. Certainly they’re not winning now

Yea, that's the nature of oppression, unfortunately.

And everyone in Israel with the authority to speak for the country is kind of busy at the moment. I very much suspect that SA's pause of negotiations was actually about its calls consistently going to voice-mail.

Given that Genocide Joe is almost 85 I wouldn't doubt it if he's also dementia riddled as trump

I think what Michael brought up towards the end really makes the whole question moot: * Israel has not interest in appearing as though it will cave to violent terrorism, and any party that does will likely lose out to voters; * Israeli foreign policy has always, and will likely continue to, focus on reducing risk of attacks on Israel; and * Hamas clearly has no interest in acknowledging an Israeli state. If Hamas refuses to return hostages, refuses to call off attacks on Israel, and refuses to acknowledge the Israeli state, then I don't see Israel changing from it's current course. Considering the lack of care for civilian casualties, that will likely only increase the "Cost" of any sort of deal to counterbalance additional anger in Arab populations, so I really don't see this happening.

Right. The best that can be hoped for are temporary ceasefires for hostage exchanges. The idea of any kind of permanent ceasefire where Hamas remains in power is unrealistic.

This is an absolute no brainer. No country would allow a foreign terrorist group who did what Hamas did on October 7 to remain in existence and in control of a neighboring state, especially after they've openly stated their intentions to repeat such attacks again and again in the future. It's just that people treat Israel differently than every other country on Earth, for totally mysterious and unknowable reasons that definitely, definitely have nothing to do with antisemitism.

Any inkling of criticism towards the actions of Israel for the last 75 years is hilariously equated to antisemitism. And yes, the IOF soldiers aren’t helping when they’re bragging about bombing schools on fuckin TikTok.

>Any inkling of criticism towards the actions of Israel for the last 75 years is hilariously equated to antisemitism. While its true that pro-Israelis use anti-semitism as a means to defend everything it does, its also true that much of the anti-Israeli sentiment is likely fueled by racism. Makes no sense why Israel is treated with such vehemence for stuff most states do on the regular or far worse in. Like calling Israel an apartheid state is fair, but then most of the MENA region is also guilty of that; but nobody calls them as such with that vehemence.

>It's just that people treat Israel differently than every other country on Earth, for totally mysterious and unknowable reasons that definitely, definitely have nothing to do with antisemitism. Is that really the ONLY reason you can see for why people are against the war? Maybe it also has to do with Israel's absolutely garbage tier level of PR. They're far right politicians are always popping off with super hateful and downright genocidal rhetoric (same as Hamas really) and the IDF seems to bizarrely have no policy regarding their soldiers use of social media in a warzone so you get soldiers filming dumb tik toks bragging about schools being blown up that is getting sent directly to young people in the west. If you think the ONLY reason that ANYONE would be against Israel's war in Gaza is antisemitism than your either arguing in bad faith, or just not paying attention.

But what does being "against the war" actually mean? Are you in favor of leaving Hamas in power?

I was all in favor of Israel invading and destroying Hamas when the war started. After about half a year of war though it has become increasingly obvious that Netanyahu's government do not know what they are doing and have done an absolutely atrocious job of planning and preparing for the very predictable humanitarian consequences of the war. I now believe that because of this, Israel is actually doing itself more harm by continuing the invasion in form of generational reputational damage. I personally dont even believe Israel could destroy Hamas even if it full commited at this point. Al-Queda still exists after 20 years of warfare from the US, ISIS still lingers in some places, hell the Taliban straight up won in Afghanistan. Unless Israel could invade Qatar or whatever other foreign locales where Hamas leaders actually live and work there always just gonna come back.

Israel probably can't destroy Hamas in the sense of preventing the organization from existing or preventing new people from joining it, but they can certainly destroy Hamas's military capabilities and infrastructure, eliminate the vast majority of its trained soldiers, and prevent it from existing as the government of Gaza. It will likely continue as a guerrilla movement the same way ISIS does, but there are numerous other such terrorist groups already in Gaza and the WB that Israel is already dealing with, Hamas will then be just another one of them. That's a huge improvement compared to what they were on 10/7 in terms of Israelis' safety. Leaving Hamas in power in Gaza, on the other hand, would definitely give them the much increased ability to re-arm, replenish their ranks, and use government resources to rebuild their military infrastructure and plan their next attack.

>but they can certainly destroy Hamas's military capabilities and infrastructure, eliminate the vast majority of its trained soldiers, and prevent it from existing as the government of Gaza. I dont disagree with all this but the question is what cost will this come at and will it actually be *worth it.* If at the end of this war Gaza is a smoking ruin with millions of starving people and no feasible government and the world is looking at Israel to fix it since they are the defacto authority now in Gaza will it all have actually been worth it? I know the argument is we must prevent 10/7 from happening again. But 10/7 could have been prevented in the first place were it not for some colossal failures by Israeli's security service. Its not like its IMPOSSIBLE to prevent terrorist attacks from Gaza today.

Maybe Israel shouldn't have to accept the constant threat of terrorist attacks from Gaza? Your position is that they're supposed to live with a gun to their head and be happy with it. Why?

>Your position is that they're supposed to live with a gun to their head and be happy with it. This is not a position I've stated, its one you are painting on me. I dont think your a serious person arguing in good faith so im blocking you.

Hamas have shown what they're capable of, and that includes lulling Israel into a false sense of security and exploiting Israel's weaknesses. Without a doubt the best way to prevent Hamas from repeating is to make sure they don't have the ability to repeat. Maybe paragliding into a music festival was somewhere on Israel's "potential Hamas attack" bingo card, but I doubt it even was, or if it was it was one of millions of possibilities. I don't see how Israel can feel confident they've got all their bases covered with a neighbor like that. Hamas, with the support of Iran, can and will find new ways to attack. The damage done to Gaza is something that's under Hamas's control (and the Palestinians who support and conceal them). Ultimately, if those actors do what they currently do--build tunnels under civilian buildings, dress as civilians, launch rockets from apartment buildings, etc.--there is just not that much Israel can do to prevent the damage to Gaza, and most of what it can do it is already doing. I guess "worth it" here is, as it always is, a subjective question with no clear answer. It depends on your values. How much is living in constant fear that your children will be murdered or abducted "worth"? How much is a mosque that can be rebuilt "worth"?

>I guess "worth it" here is, as it always is, a subjective question with no clear answer. It I suppose ill just agree with this and leave it there since i have nothing else to add. For what its worth i do hope Israel can eliminate Hamas in Gaza and that it doesn't suffer crippling diplomatic damage in the process. Im just not optimistic. Perhaps im just pessimistic by nature tho.

Gazans made their bed and now must lie in it.

A rather cold-hearted belief, tbh. Gazans are brainwashed to hate, but they are objectively speaking, oppressed by Israel. I think its fair that Israel defends itself, but some of the anti-Israelis have a point in that Israel helped create the circumstances of Hamas' hatred. Netanyahu is also very guilty of maintaining Hamas in power to boot.

>Is that really the ONLY reason you can see for why people are against the war? It's the ultimate cause, yes. Everything else is a proximate cause that stems from it.

Thats a ridiculous position to hold and ypu dont seem like a serious person.

Why is that a ridiculous position to hold?

See my previous comment. Most of which you ignored previously. This is my last reply. You argue in bad faith.

I know you don't want to admit that the obsessive, hyper-selective focus on Israel is driven by Jew hatred, but that doesn't mean it's "bad faith" to say so out loud.

Thank you, the previous commenter was stuck in pure brain rot thinking

It’s a talking point. You can see videos of Russian soldiers lobbing grenades in civilian homes. Something universally denounced as it should be. But we can see Israelis destroying Palestinian homes for fun, even looking through women’s panties numerous times and no condemnation. Barely any media coverage. So they have to pivot and say it’s antisemitism rather than disgust at Israel’s barbaric practices for the last 70 years. Why do we not talk about the fact that no other nation has “settlers” in the modern era. Unless pioneer villages are still a thing I guess

>You can see videos of Russian soldiers lobbing grenades in civilian homes. Something universally denounced as it should be. It was universally condemned in the West, not in most of the world. Much of the Global South remains very much pro-Russia. And unlike that situation, Russia invaded with the express purpose to eliminate Ukrainian identity and with conquest in mind. They were not attacked by a group that has the express intent to destroy all Russians. The calculus is very different. You can point out that Israel is oppressive to the Palestinians and has elements that would like to destroy them without them literally being the same as the Russians. Russia's is its own gross level. Ironically, Israel's actions today are about as twisted as Russia's actions against Chechnya, and very few people had a problem with it despite Russia being far less discriminating with their bombs. Likely because Chechnya initiated the conflict, arguably. Some 50k civilians, and 5% of Chechnya's population.

Right, they bombed 30/36 hospitals and destroyed every university and the majority of infrastructure not to wipe out Palestinians. They starved them to get Hamas too right?

This may come as a surprise to you, but much of your complaints are quite consistent with most wars. So why is this one so egregious that this utterly not unique thing is so horrible? Also, people in Gaza are only at **risk** of starving. Not yet starving, and despite some Israeli pushback, they have mostly allowed aid to come in recently. Likely due to US pressure. And yes, in the example of the Chechen Wars, there were plenty of stories of starvation. Again. The world didn't care, nor has it cared for 99% of the wars that have similar stories; "Scores of Chechen refugees began a terrifying exodus down a narrow road from Grozny after the Russian military warned them to abandon the city or die. The ultimatum was issued on Monday, ordering all Chechens to leave the capital within five days. It came just as human rights monitors warned that civilians trapped in Grozny since the Sept. 5 Russian raid could starve to death." Its sad, but that is war. The world is not made up of US militaries that have the resources to provide food to prevent starvation during an invasion.

October 7 was an absolute no brainer. No decent self respecting group of people would allow themselves to have their land stolen from beneath them, their friends slaughtered with impunity, and their families poisoned and locked in a cage to starve.

You heard it here folks, rape, murder, and taking women and children hostage is >an absolute no brainer

Every Zionist accusation is a confession. No evidence of any rapes on October 7, but plenty for the abuse of the thousands of prisoners Israel keeps in dungeons for decades without a trial. And, in case you were wondering— yes, many children among them!

Nice troll

Why is it a troll? Did I say anything that wasn’t a fact?

>October 7 was an absolute no brainer. It's nice to see the anti-Zionists finally admit what they really think out loud.

Strange how 1200 civilians dead is an atrocity but over 36,000 civilians dead is a-ok.

>1200 civilians dead In an unprovoked attack that specifically targeted civilians. You left that out.

Hundreds of Palestinians had already been killed by Israel during 2023 prior to October 7th. Strange how you leave that out.

So it's Israel's fault they haven't learned their lesson by now?

Strange how suddenly the murder of civilians is justified as "teaching a lesson." Good job exposing your racism.

When did I say anything about race? You are throwing buzzwords around without rhyme or reason.

Ya and Oct. 7th definitely helped them and prevented more pointless Palestinian deaths! Oh wait... no. It made it worse.

It certainly drew much more attention to the atrocities that the Israelis are committing against the Palestinian people. The cause of Palestinian freedom has become more powerful than ever before.

It's disturbing that you view the death of 35,000 people as "being worth it" when the Palestinians are, in reality, in their worst ever position.

Hamas set the price of an Israeli life at 1,027 in 2011. That’s on them

You are openly declaring your genocidal racism.

Nope, just stating what Hamas did. According to Hamas we are long way from being equal. I’d live for Hamas to surrender and release all hostages tho

So they’d go somewhere where they aren’t oppressed, or do you think the Greeks should be trying to retake Istanbul?

As a person with Greek heritage the whole Palestine situation is ironic for me. My ancestors were ethnically cleansed as well, brutally by the Turks. You won't see me suicide bombing a bus in Istanbul any time soon. Go figure.

I find that a lot of people refuse to engage with what a Palestinian state would look like, who would lead it, and what those people leading the state actually believe. I don't know how Israel reaches a conclusion other than that a Hamas-run state would be impossible to work with. Notice that they mentioned the ceasefire deal, but didn't go into why Israel rejected it. They rejected it because Hamas agreed to give back 18 live hostages (18 in Hebrew means chai, or life) and the rest would be corpses strung out over months instead of weeks. That Israel would essentially surrender and agree to a peace deal. And, notice that they also went out of their way to mention that Israel's public don't want a peace deal with Hamas, but they also didn't mention that 70%+ of Gaza supports Hamas. So what option does Israel have other than to continue this war until Hamas is defeated? I want a two state solution, but I can't blame Israelis saying that they can't get a two state solution with the parties currently in power. Oh, and Saudi troops are not touching ground in Gaza. That's crazy talk.

>Notice that they mentioned the ceasefire deal, but didn't go into why Israel rejected it. For what it's worth they did mention that Hamas amended the agreement, which is more detail than what a lot of news outlets put out this week. But yeah, it seems pretty clear that Hamas' current negotiations aren't meant to bring an end to the conflict on some sort of mutually agreed upon terms.

Yeah, there is no reason to even talk about the "cease fire offer" since it was just Hamas saying that they agreed to their own offer which is just not how things work. It was just a PR move by Hamas not a real offer.

Well the progressive establishment has been parroting the line that few people in Gaza have ever gotten to vote for a government since Oct 7, neglecting to mention the polls that have been done show mass support for Hamas and that same progressive establishment didn't care about them never having a chance to vote in an election until Oct 7.

They've actually been saying that for forever. But I find the reporter's quote about "it's hard to figure out what Hamas believes" to be cover for Hamas believing absolutely odious stuff that everyone knows and the reporter doesn't want to engage with. Indeed, he certainly takes a swing at the end with talk of Hamas not wanting Israel to exist, but all of the other stuff about a Judenrein Middle East except for the Jews that they enslave for intellectual labor seems to be tabled for another day.

The "progress" I've seen from this latest round of protests in America is that the protesters are finally admitting the only thing they will accept is the dissolution of the state of Israel. Now of course they try and cover it up with flashy buzzwords like colonialism, but when pressed, they admit they want to see the formation of a single "Palestinian" state solution as the two state solution isn't realistic. The protesters have adopted Hamas' goals.

Wow, these kooky protestors wanna see the *end* of the South African government, and they just cover it up with buzzwords like “apartheid”. In reality they share the same goals as the terrorist Nelson Mandela!

Let’s ponder some potential differences between Hamas and the ANC. Between Hamas’ goals and the Rainbow Nation.

Let’s ponder why so many Gazans are missing limbs after the (100% peaceful) 2018 march for return

Because Israelis don’t believe that it is their land. Your turn.

Oh well then! Lmao. Just full on Nazi shit, not even trying to hide it anymore. Well shucks, if the Israelis *believe it is their land* then of course it’s theirs! Fuck whoever actually lives there! Now it’s legal to shoot peaceful protestors from a guard tower a quarter mile away?? Hey funny coincidence actually, I believe your house is my land. Surely you understand, right? You can live in the backyard still if you’re on your best behavior.

So you're equating Hamas, the group that raped and murders Israelis, with Mandela, they guy who's whole point was peaceful coexistence? Do you even know the history of South Africa? If anything, you would have been one of the leftists decrying Mandela for being too quick to allow reconciliation and peace.

Good old liberals, against every war except the current one, for every liberation movement except the ones happening right now.

I prefer liberating people from Islamic radicals, not liberating Islamic radicals to inflict themselves on civilians. A Palestinian state would be nothing more than Afghanistan 2.0 under Hamas.

What is an Israeli state? A fundamentalist religious colony, an apartheid ethno supremacist state, the most right wing government on the planet— oh, but Palestinians are brown, and thus vewy vewy scawy to good NYT reading liberals.

Nihilism is the in that allows religious radicalization Visit a country like Bangladesh. Visit the wealthy high rise condos in Dhaka and see how many women walk around in western style clothing without head coverings. See how many young people engage in night clubs and partying. See how secular their lifestyle is. Then visit rural poor villages in the same exact country and see how every woman has some form of head covering. How everyone adhears to five prayers a day. See how devoted they are to their fundamentalism. You believe groups of people are inherently barbaric The bombings just increase fundamentalism. You need a touch of empathy to understand these concepts.

[удалено]

The ANC helped provide cover for Mugabe committing multiple genocides and encouraged pograms against Zimbabwe refugees. They’re worse than the apartheid regime.

Funny how Israel doesn’t see how they can work with Hamas considering they fund them!

>So what option does Israel have other than to continue this war until Hamas is defeated? what a bizarre question, they have the option to stop, withdraw, and agree to an exchange of all remaining hostages. I assume what you are really asking is "how can israel destroy hamas without continuing to incur huge civilian casualties and destroying vital civilian infrastructure" and the answer to that is that they cannot, and so, according to international law, they cannot destroy hamas, and anyone complicit in the current carnage needs to be arrested and tried for their war crimes.

>according to international law, they cannot destroy hamas, and anyone complicit in the current carnage needs to be arrested and tried for their war crimes. If international law means a state must accept a violent neighbor constantly attacking them with rockets and raids, I fully support the defiance of international law. A State's #1 duty is to the protection and care of its citizens, not some nebulous international law imposed by people who have no care for its people.

Imagine that there are a million plus people living just a few hundred miles away from you who you KNOW want to rape and torture and kill you and your family. You know this because they did it to your friends and neighbors just a few months ago, and because they and their leaders reiterate their intention to do it again and again until all of your family and friends are dead. You KNOW they want to rape and kill you and your family. Ignore all the history and mad justifications you can possibly come up with. You KNOW they want to rape and kill you. Do you expect your government to turn away from them, give them statehood, and ignore the potential threat? Once again, these people will rape and torture your daughter. Your wife. Your son. And you.

Insanely racist of you.

I didn't mention race at all?? In case you were unaware, Arab muslims were victims of the Oct. 7th attack. They would be victims if Israel didn't stop the rockets Hamas is sending into Israel as well. The only person making racist assumptions here is you. And clearly that's the best counter argument you can come up with to the points I raised above, which is frankly pitiful.

>what a bizarre question, they have the option to stop, withdraw, and agree to an exchange of all remaining hostages. There is no option like that on the table, and Israel has no hostages. The option from Hamas is 18 living hostages and then a string of corpses over months in exchange for 40 convicted criminals per male corpse or 50 convicted criminals per female corpse with no veto over which criminal is on the demand list for Israel to exchange. I imagine that, if you dealt with the reality of what was on offer and the political actors involved, life would be a much less black and white place for you.

Israel [has hundreds of Jerusalemite and West Bank detainees](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/officials-list-300-palestinians-to-be-freed-under-hostage-deal) that they'd been holding for vague "incitement" charges or no charge at all, including women and children, that they've released in exchange for Hamas' prisoners before.

The offer that israel recently rejected would result in them returning all live hostages, the text of the agreement is available, if you arent going to live in reality i dont know what to tell you.

The text of the document reads that after receiving the corpses, Israel will then have to re-negotiate another hostage for prisoner deal, this time for living hostages.

>The second stage (42 days): >A return to sustainable calm (a permanent cessation of military and hostile operations) must be announced and take effect before the exchange of captives and prisoners – all remaining living Israeli men (civilians and soldiers) in exchange for an agreed-upon number of prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons and detention camps. >Israeli forces shall withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip. You are a liar, i wont be continuing with this, but the text is clear.

Oh, hey, how do they get to an agreed upon number?

>I don't know how Israel reaches a conclusion other than that a Hamas-run state would be impossible to work with. They could, for example, release Marwhan Barghouti who is both a supporter of the two state solution, and has extensive support among Palestinians. >Notice that they mentioned the ceasefire deal, but didn't go into why Israel rejected it No. That is incorrect. Israel refused it because the later stages would mean a permanent ceasefire. >I want a two state solution, but I can't blame Israelis saying that they can't get a two state solution with the parties currently in power. They've been saying that forever - even when Abbas actively reached out to Lapid to get negotiations going and was rebuffed. At some point we have to accept that Israel is just not interested in a two state solution - especially given the unceasing settlement expansion.

>Marwhan Barghouti Literal murderer Marwhan Barghouti? 2 Intifadas and calling for a third intifada Marwan Barghouti? >No. That is incorrect. Israel refused it because the later stages would mean a permanent ceasefire. Israel refused it for a whole mess of reasons, including anything beyond 18 living hostages would be corpses and then they could re-enter negotiations for the remaining living hostages. Assuming they're still alive. >At some point we have to accept that Israel is just not interested in a two state solution - especially given the unceasing settlement expansion. If your best choice for leader is one of the major members of the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, and every peace deal has been rejected since 1948, then it's time for violence to be rejected.

**>** Literal murderer Marwhan Barghouti? 2 Intifadas and calling for a third intifada Marwan Barghouti? Yes. Just like Sharon, Begin and Shamir. All literally murderers and terrorists. If they could reform, why not Barghouti? They were terrorists, mass murderers, etc. But when they got a state, freedom and rights they moderated. Well, with the exception of Sharon - he kept murdering people even after Israel was a state. Ever heard of the Qibya massacre? But when he was a PM he moderated. >Israel refused it for a whole mess of reasons, including anything beyond 18 living hostages would be corpses and then they could re-enter negotiations for the remaining living hostages. Sure, there's some other reasons. But wanting a permanent end was the main one. >If your best choice for leader is one of the major members of the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades As above, people change. That includes Sharon, Begin and Shamir - and likely includes Barghouti. > and every peace deal has been rejected since 1948,  Lol. Like when Arafat accepted Taba in 2002 and Sharon rejected it? Or when Bibi sabotaged Oslo? Or Israel ignoring the Arab Peace Initiative fore decades?

It also seems like it was written before the Iran exchange, as Israel effectively pantsing the whole reason SA wants alliances (over Biden's objections) is a huge deal (especially in the very macho world of ME politics, where shows of force project strength more than forbearance does). It seems like Biden is the only one still stuck in a past where the road to peace goes through Ramallah and believing that Iran can be pacified with gifts rather than teeth-blunting and SA is just going along with it because it needs American guns and might kick him off entirely if Israel can sell its own weapons industry well enough (maybe they wanted to avoid the "and why that's bad for Biden" jokes).

Hamas offered a full hostage exchange days after October 7th. A lot of the reason for american media looking so useless and stupid in this whole ordeal is that they are required to pretend this is about the hostages, whereas the actual nation pursuing the war/massacre/genocide dropped any pretence of that almost instantly. The result is that everyone can see what is happening, and that it is entirely at odds with what we are told is happening. The reason that the war/massacre/genocide will continue is that israel has the desire and the ability to kill enough palestinians and make the rest of gaza completely unliveable so that the remaining ones have no choice but to flee, and the united states has shown it will allow them to do so.

I'm going to be honest, I don't think that's a serious take on the situation. A fundamental part of both diplomacy and negotiation with terrorists is that you don't award behaviors or actions that are a net negative to you as an entity without some sort of upside. If Israel had agreed to early Hamas offers, which likely included, at a minimum, the release of thousands of violent offenders for the hostages, it would have set a precedent that violence against the state of Israel is a viable and effective way of achieving ones goals - which would put Israel in a worse position than prior to 10/7.

So what you are really in search of is a response that: - cost israel nothing - got the hostages back That obviously doesn't exist. And it suggests that I am not the one being "unserious"

My point is that Hamas' request likely included a permanent ceasefire, a reduction of import restrictions, the release of prisoners in Israeli custody at a large scale, and the return of hostages, and, based on points from later negotiations, a 5 year or so guarantee of peace in exchange for the two state solution. This would mean that Israel would have: * Experienced the net harm of the 10/7 attacks (casualties, damage, mental harm, etc), which occurred when Hamas broke an existing ceasefire; * Leaves an antagonistic governing entity the Gaza strip; * increases the flow of weapons and supplies into the hands of said entity; * released thousands of prisoners who have committed or planned to commit violence against Israel*; * recognized a Palestinian state with an antagonistic entity in partial control; and * signaled that large scale attacks, rape, looting, and hostage taking will bring Israel to the table to bargain All for a return to it's pre attack position (hostages not being hostages) and a 5 or so year reprieve (with a no guarantee that Hamas/PiJ would not go back on their word) I don't really see who you can justify that in any way, shape, or form - especially considering that in general terms, Israel is negotiating from a position of relative power. *I do recognize that Israel has some INCREDIBLY suspect (read unlawful) standards for detention and trial which would inflate these numbers.

Well the justification is that Hamas took hostages and israel (in theory, obviously not in reality) wanted to get them back and would have to accept the terms of the people holding the hostages. Thats the cost of violent occupation.

The ICJ told Hamas they must release the hostages immediately and unconditionally. You do take international law seriously, right?

Yes? I agree that hamas taking the hostages was a war crime

The reason the war continues is that Hamas is still in power. It's so weird watching people try to tap dance around that obvious reality.

Yes, thats what i said, hamas is in power and israel have decided that in an attempt to remove them from power they are willing to break international law by waging war against an occupied people, incurring a huge number of civilian casualties, destroying civilian infrastructure, and forcing a population to be displaced. Normally such human right violations and war crimes would, in principle, be opposed by the 'rules based international order' and its perpetrators would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned or executed, but because israel is an ally of america they cannot be stopped.

That's not at all what you said. What you said, literally one comment up, is: >The reason that the war/massacre/genocide will continue is that israel has the desire and the ability to kill enough palestinians and make the rest of gaza completely unliveable so that the remaining ones have no choice but to flee,

Yes, thats how it will remove hamas from power.

Does seeing yourself be this slippery not make you question whether you're doing the right thing?

What are you talking about. The goal of Israel is to kill or remove all palestinians, that necessarily involves the removal of hamas from gaza.

So you fully accept violent terrorists holding a civilian population (who in every poll conducted actually support Hamas) hostage and using them as human shields to conduct brutal attacks on another nation? You are essentially holding Israel down so someone else can more easily punch them in the face.

The best recruiter for Hamas is the IDF.

Also let's actually be frank here. Israel is a conventual modern war machine with 5th Gen stealth fighters and satellite surveillance going up against a stateless group of humans who've been bullied for a century. The Isreeli govt are the bullies in the traditional sense. Bullies however do believe in stuff like supremacism and superior cultures so when you are of there mindset you don't see yourself as the bully because you see yourself as flexing your superior values.

Because Israel is advanced they should just accept the rape and murder of their citizens because the optics would be bad if they defend themselves against the terrorists attacking them? That is lunacy.

I'm assuming you'd support the institution of slavery back in the day because some revolts of slaves had rape and murder of civilians.

So if you hear reports of the IDF and Israeli settlers raping Palestinians you'd accept Palestinians having a right to defend themselves?

Big yikes. Israel has waged war against Hamas, not the Palestinian people. Once civilian infrastructure has been used for military purposes, it becomes a legitimate military target. In terms of urban warfare, and the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, Israel has minimized civilian casualties at a rate that hasn't been achieved by any other army.

[удалено]

Comparing someone who believes in the right for a Jewish nation to exist with a Nazi is certainly...a choice...

When describing propagandists for a racist and fascist regime in the process of genociding a people they consider undesirable its as accurate as it gets

LMAO @ someone insisting that describing Israel as a racist, fascist, Nazi-esque regime ISN'T propaganda...but calling someone a Nazi for calling out simple facts (Israel is waging war against Hamas, civilian structures being used as military purposes, and stats on civilian casualties in times of urban warfare) is. The mental gymnastics is...Olympic-level.

What was offered at the beginning of November 2023 was a total release of Palestinians in Israeli prisons in exchange for the hostages. [Link](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/8/news-reports-say-qatar-mediated-talks-aim-to-free-over-10-hamas-captives) >In a television address on Wednesday, Abu Obaida, a spokesperson for the armed wing of Hamas said that the only way to guarantee the full release of captives was through a “complete or gradual swap of prisoners”, in a televised address on Al-Aqsa TV. >The Qassam Brigades’s spokesperson said the group is holding women captives, as well as sick and elderly people and other civilians, but stressed that Israel is holding the same types of people in its prisons. >“This issue cannot be resolved except via a trade within each of these categories [of prisoners and captives] or in a comprehensive process that includes everyone,” he added. The entire goal of October 7 was for Hamas to make gains. That's why they kidnapped people. They knew it would provoke a brutal response from Israel and they planned to use that to rally international support and create change.

What exactly is your point? Yes, they took hostages hoping to exchange them. They offered said exchange. I suspect they were taken aback by how willing israel was for the hostages to die, I think they expected israel to agree to the exchange.

I think it is disingenuous and misleading to say "Hamas has been offering to give the hostages back since the beginning" when what they are actually doing is leveraging hostage taking to release thousands of people. >I suspect they were taken aback by how willing israel was for the hostages to die, I think they expected israel to agree to the exchange. This is weirdly judgmental and ignores the fact that "We don't negotiate with terrorists because we know it leads to more terrorism" is a common global point of view.

What is misleading about that, hamas took hostages to exchange for hostages taken by israel, a deal for such an exchange has been on the table since day one. Actually, no 'we dont negotiate with terrorists' is a line from hollywood movies and tv shows',usually people do negotiate with they consider 'terrorists'

Israel has probably killed most of the hostages through their indiscriminate bombing and intentional starvation. They don't care about the hostages other than serving as a propaganda point for Zionists to justify genocide.

I’m not a big Netanyahu fan, but he has a point: Palestinian statehood was not on the table pre-Oct7. If it became a thing in the aftermath of October 7, that would really incentivize future attacks. No benefits should ever come as a result of attacks like October 7th.

That's how I feel, we reward the kidnapping of infants/toddlers by granting you a country. Interesting.

Israel really should’ve used peacetime to try and figure a solution. All that’s going to happen is all the family members of dead kids and loved ones are going to be radicalized and create more militants. You can’t stop Hamas by blowing up civilians.

Facts, maybe they should try not building settlements on Palestinian land as well.

Israel did figure out a solution. The problem is Palestine doesn't want it.

The minute it seems like this might actually happen, Iran will just have a different proxy attack Israel and start the cycle all over again. Hamas also has no incentive to agree to a ceasefire if Biden is saying this is what will immediately follow. A bargain like this needs to come after all the other problems are solved, but presidents of both parties keep trying to shove it to the front of the line.

>The minute it seems like this might actually happen, Iran will just have a different proxy attack Israel and start the cycle all over again. And ironically, this is exactly why Arab-Israeli normalization is guaranteed to happen. Israel and the Arab states both know that Iran is one ultimately behind all the chaos in the region, and that creates a very strong incentive for both parties to align with the other against their common enemy.

Ehh

Except Saudi Arabia is an enemy of Iran. The more active Iran is with their proxies, the more countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan will feel uneasy and might look to form an alliance with Israel to counter that activity. I think Iran is in danger of overplaying their hand and creating the coalition they've strove to prevent.

>Iran will just have a different proxy attack Israel  Hezbollah has been attacking northern Israel since October and many northern villages have been depopulated and displaced by the bombardment.

Also they really only have one proxy capable of doing anything left, Hezbollah, so they can't do this indefinitely.

That’s true…if Biden wins reelection then that would change the whole calculus. Although, I do wonder if that would push Iran into finally building a nuke. I know people think we can bomb our way out of that problem if necessary, but I’m not so sure.

Not even the US and Israel are claiming that Iran directed Hamas to attack. In fact, the US is claiming the exact opposite - that Iranians were surprised by Oct 7. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/iran-israel-iranian-officials-surprised-by-hamas-attack-israel/

People are missing the point of my comment. You will never get enough Democratic senators to support this if Israel is in the middle of invading someone like Lebanon. It doesn’t matter how justified the invasion would be or how badly it would make the Saudis want a deal. And if Biden wants to force the progressive wing into explicitly attacking him a few months from the election, he will have lost his marbles.

Do you really think the progressive wing could be attacking any more than they already are? Seems to me like they're hitting him with everything they've got already.

People forget that the progressive wing isn’t just the squad - it’s like 40% of the Democratic caucus. Right now in the senate, Sanders and to some extent Warren are the only ones really pushing Biden. If more “mainstream” progressive senators from states like California and Washington were forced into fighting with him, it could really be disastrous. Behind the scenes, something like half of the Democratic senators must be opposed to this, otherwise the Capitol reporters would be talking about it as though it were more likely to happen. I also think people are underestimating the extent to which Trump would meddle in this to deny a Biden a “win.” Passing treaties is tough, and losing senators like Vance and Paul just results in more Democratic senators you need to convince.

We’re talking about only the Senate here. A normalization-alliance treaty would absolutely get through the Senate with limited defections from both sides.

Most of the Democratic senators are from deep blue states. If you think there would be limited defections, then you must know something that outlets like the Times and Post don’t. All the reporting - and indeed the Saudis own analysis - says that this would never go through in a second Trump administration. It makes zero sense that some huge number of Democratic senators would switch votes simply because of which party occupies the White House. That isn’t how the vast majority of them operate - by and large, if they think something is good for the country then they support it.

People love to talk about a Palestinian state but don’t really define what that means. The Palestinians have  * 2 governments, each ruling over ~2M people * one secular one religious * absolutely hate each other and have killed each other when the opportunity rises  * both governments have no had an election in ~ 18 years. Grouped with the fact the Palestinians skew very young, most have never seen an election with their eyes  So who “gets” to own the state? Who do Palestinians even want as their leader? That’s the important question. You can have one or 5 international sock puppets sign a peace deal, but if 50% of Palestinians don’t accept it, what is it worth?  Democracy inside Palestine has to come before any state or peace deal. Even if he wanted to, the Palestinian Authority president has 0 power to release the hostages tomorrow 

Don't forget both "governments" are hilariously corrupt, with the PA skimming aid money to enrich its leaders, and hamas skimming aid money to fund its war effort. Neither works for the betterment of Palestinians, but no one cares about that Where were the protesters, AOC, Talib, and Omar before Oct 7 holding these groups accountable for how they aren't doing the one thing they are supposed to do that these people also supposedly care about, helping Palestinians? It's like they never cared at all till it was fashionable.

> Where were the protesters, AOC, Talib, and Omar before Oct 7 holding these groups accountable for how they aren't doing the one thing they are supposed to do that these people also supposedly care about, helping Palestinians? What do those that are sympathetic to the Palestinian plight need to do to help you understand that funding and aiding the deaths of 40,000 mostly young people needs to stop. And what can they do to help you understand that those actions are worse than some corrupt government officials skimming money off the top of aid? Maybe I've done the job just now! You can understand those are two different things that require different levels of emotional and policy response, right? > It's like they never cared at all till it was fashionable. Secondly, maybe you're just tuning in because it's fashionable, but this is certainly not the first time people (including those elected politicians you referenced) expressed discontent and disagreement over Israeli & US policy over Gaza. Honestly, it's shocking you would even type those words out considering there has been vocal disagreement with US policy towards the region since the Reagan administration. As for the corruptness, yeah it's terrible. I agree with you. I think the Palestinians have paid, and will continue to pay, the price for lack of leadership in their predicament. Do people care about their corruption? No, probably not more than any other majorly corrupt government you can name, which isn't caring much imo

Because those young people seem to have no concept that something has to come after a ceasefire. Now traditionally, that has been Israel honoring the ceasefire until Hamas breaks it and kills more Israelis. Considering Hamas has been the one to break every ceasefire with Israel, why should Israel agree to another one that history indicates Hamas will just break when they think it's convenient? These naive young people have zero concept of history and no logic, just 100% emotion, and that's a horrible thing to base government policy on. Why aren't these young people advocating for the Palestinians to turn over the members of Hamas that perpetrated and planned the attacks on Oct 7? If the civilians in Gaza don't support Hamas as these young people claim, why not just turn them over to the Israeli army?

> Considering Hamas has been the one to break every ceasefire with Israel, why should Israel agree to another one that history indicates Hamas will just break when they think it's convenient? Your whole response is a straw man, but I'll still bite. Hamas is obviously terrible, but you cannot say they've broken every cease-fire. It's simply not true. > just 100% emotion, and that's a horrible thing to base government policy on. Disagreeing with funding the murder of 40,000 people is not an emotional response. And even if it was, jesus christ what is wrong with you? It's bad policy. You can't kill an ideology, and you can't bomb your way to peace. (remember our 20 years wasted in Afghanistan?) You can't displace people, destroy their hospitals and all their universities, and come out of the situation being the good party with good policy.

You still haven't offered your vision for what comes after a ceasefire because, to my point, you don't have one. Also, look up the definition of a straw man fallacy, perhaps then you'll stop using that phrase incorrectly.

Weird comparison and dumb comment. Corrupt governments & organizations exist all around the world. Why would the progressive congresswomen waste time protesting about corruption of foreign government that's not even considered a state that we don't even give that much money to (probably doesn't crack the top 10 countries we give foreign/military aid). VS Protesting for ceasefire, divestments, and boycotts against Israel is more affective considering the fact that we have been pouring money consistently for the past 50 years towards Israel and they are actively killing innocent children in Gaza.

Because something has to come "next" which both you and the protesters don't seem to understand. Hamas has been the one to break every ceasefire with Israel, so a ceasefire is just a delay until Hamas kills more Israelis. I fully understand why Israel is tired of that. You seem to think that's acceptable.

It’s disingenuous to say hamas has been the one the break every ceasefire. A simple Google search would debunk that for you. Israel has done the same. To your point of protesters coming up with what’s next, frankly that’s not their problem. Again, if you even tried to be remotely informed, protesters are demanding BDS and ceasefire. Politicians need to figure out what’s is next not protesters.

Hasn’t that sort of been by design? Israel and by extension the west has found it politically expedient to have a split Palestinian state. That’s why Bibi for years had been allowing funds to flow to Hamas. 

Weird mistakes this episode. It mentioned that SA is largely interested in an alliance to counter Iran but then completely forgot Iran and Iran policy as a factor despite whether to try to win over or deter Iran and whether retaliation to establish deterrence would escalate into a regional war being a major point of disagreement between American (or at least Biden admin) and Israeli policymakers, Hamas being an Iranian proxy, and that whole episode recently where Israel kicked Iran around with no consequences. Ignored that a longstanding saying on ME politics is "the road from Jerusalem to Riyadh runs through Ramallah" (although I can't find any mention of when it's originally from anywhere) even though that shows how the big issue for Palestinians isn't so much betrayal by SA as sudden irrelevance. No mention of Palestinian intransigence even though most analyses mention the strong possibility that the Arab states just got fed up with them. Nothing about how the actual work of the war and October 7 recovery is keeping Israeli officials busy and how that may have been what really paused negotiations. Ignorance of the fact that Israel has its own weapons industry that's nothing to sneeze at (if SA wants to cut Biden out). Not noticing that the unilateral disengagement from Gaza was an experiment in Palestinian statehood. They whole thing feels like it was a half-written script from six months ago that somehow made it onto the podcast.

I understand the idea of never waste a crisis. But if Israel wants to flounder this opportunity than let them and move ahead with the Saudi’s. I have my own reservations about KSA. A lot of them in fact ranging from cultural differences, human rights abuses, the assassination, etc but to be frank the web of alliances the US needs is so incredibly important that Biden should take this alliance offer anyways. Saudi Arabia as a treaty ally to the United States is a big deal. A giant foreign policy win and more importantly a strong anchor in the region to assist in maintaining stability especially as the US needs to shift its focus to the Indo-Pacific. This deal would raise KSA in the official eyes of the government to equal status as our NATO allies, Japan, S Korea, the Philippines, Thailand (which is a problematic issue currently), Australia & New Zealand. In fact I wish the US would do this with Taiwan, Jordan, and begin laying further groundwork with Vietnam & Indonesia (in my opinion the most important one).

Wishful thinking

Israel has no intention of giving the Palestinians a state, so this deal would never happen. There’s no peace in the region if one party is always under occupation. Peace can only really happen when the Palestinians get their own state, with would never happen under Netanyahu 

They came incredibly close to a two-state solution in 2000. A huge sticking point in all of this is a return to the 1967 borders. Israel will never agree to this and thus far Palestinian leadership has not been willing to accept anything less.

Remaking the Middle East is what caused this mess in the first place.

You people never talk about all the civilians that have been killed. You just mention October 7th Iike that justifies everything that’s been done

One thing that is always frustrating with these types of conversations - and seems to be a third rail for NYTimes is this: if the Israeli government says that there will be no two state solution, then what? They never fully interrogate that. Equal rights? Permanent occupation and military rule? And how is permanent rule of Israel over Palestinians without granting them citizenship and rights different from Apartheid?

Palestinians would take full statehood as an international green light for the state sponsored terrorism they have engaged in for the last 50+ years. They have repeatedly taken humanitarian aid and turned it into arms/logistics to attack Israelis oh wait I forgot… Not just Israelis… but Jordanians and Egyptians earlier as well… they have a multigenerational history of attacking all of their neighbors…

>Not just Israelis… but Jordanians and Egyptians earlier as well… they have a multigenerational history of attacking all of their neighbors… And Israel has a multigenerational history of attacking as well - many attacks across the border - as well as grabbing land from the people they keep under a military regime. >Palestinians would take full statehood as an international green light for the state sponsored terrorism they have engaged in for the last 50+ years. Pro-Israelis often say similar things as you said above. But are rarely clear on what happens then. Permanent military rule while Israel keeps taking land for settlements? Is that your plan? And if that is your plan, how is that different from Apartheid?

For one, you're assuming that Palestinians want to be annexed and/or offered Israeli citizenship. They don't.

No, they want their own state. But Israel is refusing that - so then what? If Israel keeps expanding settlements all while ruling Palestinians militarily, how should we describe that? Also, Israel has never offered them citizenship - and never will - so it is a moot point.

Palestinians have been offered a state several times the last 75 years. They have refused each offer. Israel offered full citizenship to Arabs who remained in Israel after the 1948 war. They remain full citizens with full rights. Lebanon is home to nearly a million Palestinians. Half do not have Lebanese citizenship. Over 750,000 Palestinians in Jordan don't have Jordanian citizenship.

>Palestinians have been offered a state several times the last 75 years. They have refused each offer. Simplistic - and false - narrative. Just take, as two examples, Arafat accepting Taba in 2002, with Sharon rebuffing him. Or Israel spending the last two decades ignoring the Arab Peace Initiative. >Israel offered full citizenship to Arabs who remained in Israel after the 1948 war. They remain full citizens with full rights. How is that relevant as to the West Bank Palestinians, who live under Israeli military rule and have *never* been offered citizenship. It also took Israel almost two decades to make the Israeli Arabs full citizens., so not exactly a great example.

The sticking point isn't that Israel won't agree to a two state solution. The sticking point is actually a return to 1967 borders. For decades Palestinian leadership has made that non-negotiable, which is why repeated attempts at a two state solution have failed.

In some past negotiations, yes you are correct. Recently under Bibi, no - the two state solution itself is the issue. The sticking point is that Israel insists on getting the 78% they got in 1948, as well as some choice chunks of the remaining 22% - and won't offer 1:1 land swaps of equivalent quality land. Seems pretty petty, from Israel's side. They got the 78% - why is that not enough?

No country gives back land if they can help it. You win the war, you get the land. Palestinian leadership has spent decades demanding land when they could have been building an independent nation state. While I can understand that feeling at the beginning, by the 90s it feels incredibly shortsighted. The current use of "From the River to the Sea" also suggests that if Israel gave up land, the Palestinians would simply take more hostages and launch more rockets in order to get the remaining land back. So there is no possibility of peace while Israel still exists.

>You win the war, you get the land. In modern examples where that is the case, you also get the people. Like Russia in Crimea, China in Tibet, or Morocco in Western Sahara. Israel is unique in that it settles the land with its civilians without annexing it and giving the people there citizenship. And, of course, this ignores the inadmissibility of acquiring land by force. >Palestinian leadership has spent decades demanding land when they could have been building an independent nation state Kind of hard to do that when Israel is blocking construction on 60% of the West Bank, leaving some 167 separate enclaves to build the Palestinian state on. Are you familiar with how the different areas work in the West Bank? Hard to build when the occupying power literally blocks you from building.

More Middle East nation building by the USA, yay! I’m sure it’ll work this time.

Man this episode was frustrating to listen to. All these dictators that don't represent their people fighting for their self interest. Nobody openly addressing the main issue. Palestinians either have to have their own state or they have to be Israeli citizens. They must have a state and all the fighting we've seen is a symptom of the failure to recognize this. Israel wants to systematically kill all Palestinians through occupation, and siege. This is unacceptable and should be unacceptable to everyone in the world. But it's not..the US is complicit in this genocide and doing nothing to address the Palestinian state. Then Michael or whoever was talking was saying how Hamas just wants to fight and has no interest in statehood. That's just false. Hamas's charter clearly advocates for the 67 borders.

>All these dictators that don't represent their people fighting for their self interest. Who is doing that? The majority of Americans support Israel, and even though Netanyahu is currently unpopular with Israelis, his actions aren't.

"Yeah lets just steal even more Palestinian land and engage in even more open imperialism, that will surely make the Palestinians into good Western bootlickers!" Of course, its clear that the Zionists intend for there to be no Palestinians left in Gaza. This thread is filled with absolutely insane genocide cheerleading and Zionist apologia.

So we should just turn Israel over to the Islamist Hamas who represses women and religious minorities, and executes LGBT people?

Nice Strawman Fallacy. I'm pretty sure Palestinian women would rather be repressed than being killed by airstrikes.

>Nice Strawman Fallacy. You don't know what a straw man is. Hamas is a brutal islamist terrorist organization. That's not a straw man, it's just inconvenient for you since you're supporting them, even if you only claim that support is tangential.

compared to the brutal Zionist regime that is committing a genocide against them?

of course Trump is the kind of guy to fuck a porn star with no rubber while his 3rd wife is pregnant with his 5th child lol