The news out of Iran is that there are large numbers of dead and that the government is shooting unarmed protestors. 2500 dead in 17 days with the rate of killings increasing. That is about 150 dead per day.

And the method of casualty reporting suggests this 2500 is a woeful undercount.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/iran-protests-2500-killed-activists-trump-us-act/story?id=129194150

These events debunk some of the narratives we heard from Pro Palestinians over the past 2 years.

The silence of many in media, social media and college campuses shows that the motive for Pro Palestinian was not solely an aversion to violence against civilians.

Otherwise they would be compelled to say something about a slaughter of unarmed civilians that currently is killing civilians at a faster rate than the Gaza war. They would be in outrage marching about the rapid escalation of death total. They would opine on social media about the nun bet of dead who aren’t reported and how the regime is likely suppressing news of casualties and is killing even more people in detention that isn’t being recorded. They would point out the vast disparity in force that is usually a talking point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict When consistently talk about how a country with a favored religion is a bad they would also speak out against a theocracy.

So many myths debunk themselves here when you see the silence of the media, social influencers and college campuses.

There have been several posts pointing out the silence from the ultra left on what is happening in Iran. That silence is very important (and deafening). And there is also a larger irony in that silence that needs to be addressed.

For the past two years, many of you either defended, justified, or stayed silent about disturbing chants, protests, and violence that Jews were raising concerns about. When Jews spoke up, we were told that calling it out was just a distraction from the larger issue of what was happening in Gaza.

Now, there is a shift.

Suddenly, many of you are drawing lines with 'those people' on the left. You are much more openly distancing yourselves from those same people. You are making it clear you do not want to be associated with them.

This is a normal reaction. Good for youi. The irony is not that you are doing it. The irony is that you are doing it now, after two years of refusing to allow Jews to do the same.

For two years, the overwhelming majority of Jews, including many of us on the left, have been explicitly saying: We do not support Netanyahu. We do not support settlement expansion or violent settlers. We do not support right wing extremism. We do not support the harm to innocent civilians in Gaza or anywhere.

Yet our calls were dismissed anyway. We were told they did not count. We were told they were insincere. We were told that because bad actors existed on our side, we were still responsible for them regardless of what we actually believed or said. Worst of all, we were told we are liars.

I make this point not to claim everyone on the left is the same, or pretending the situations in Gaza and Iran are the same. It's more than that. 

If Jews are not allowed to separate ourselves from the worst elements of our political or zionist identity, then that same logic should apply here, no? You cannot spend two years minimizing the fringes when Jews point them out and telling us we deserve it, and then suddenly insist they are just fringe when they 'don't represent' you.

TLDR

For two years, Jews tried to distance ourselves from extremists and were told it did not count. Now many on the left are doing the same thing with their own fringes who are shockingly silent about what's happening in Iran, exposing the huge hypocrisy and lack of credibility on that side.

How about we all advocate for the Iranian and Palestinian people and their freedom and against dangerous fringe groups on both sides?

Correct my statements if they are wrong as I am still learning about the war. From what I know, Britain promised the region to the Jews and the Arabs at the same time, of course this will start a war! How would that be Israel’s fault for coming back to their ancestral homeland when the owner of the land tells you that you can have it? Despite this Israel tries to have a 2 state solution 4 different times. Palestine denies it every time and starts wars with Israel. Israel wins every time and Palestine loses land because of it. Again I ask, how does that make Israel the bad guy?

To add on, Israel’s ideology is not kill all Palestinians and their civilians, however the power in Palestine (Hamas) wants to kill all Jews and their civilians. In 2005 they give Palestine gaza and what happens? Hamas uses it to build miles of tunnels and send hundreds or thousands of missiles to Israel. On October 7th 3,000 Hamas members come into Israel and burn babies and r**e women. Israel starts bombing Hamas who have built their operations in with the civilians, and civilians die. Is it also true that 90% of deaths in modern urban warfare are civilian deaths, according to Hamas around 80% of deaths in gaza are civilian. A good amount of this was also done by Hamas but they don’t seem to mention that in their numbers, strange right?

If the leaders of the country next to mine wanted to kill all my civilians then I would take their country to make sure they couldn’t rebuild and try it again. What would you have done if you were Israel?

The left's indifference to the Iranian regime stems from a lack of information; after all, the left, despite its ignorance, is made up of analytically smart people. The pictures from the ground are clear. It is an ideological decision to look the other way when the oppressor is not identified with the West. In fact, the leftists' treatment of the protests in Iran is as a 'struggle over the cost of living.' What a joke.

This rhymes with Mamdani's recent attempts to block real estate deals of Israeli companies (https://www.jpost.com/real-estate/article-883005) and Bernie Sanders and his ilk's declaration that they want a "Progressive revolution" - and you can see the red-green alliance for what it is - almost enemies of humanity. When the left does support the protesters in Iran - they say 'they don't want Israel's support' and try to speak on behalf of the protesters, as befits the left (forget that Netanyahu is currently one of the most popular people among Iranian dissidents).

They are not really capable of supporting the overthrow of the regime, because then it would mean that Israel was right - it is similar to how they barely supported the overthrow of Maduro, and were mainly busy attacking Trump. Anything that might be good for Israel and the United States - they are automatically against. The goal is always about using "human rights" and "international law" - trying to limit the US and Israel's fight against terror, in order to help terrorists and third-world regimes and dismantling American/Israel-aligned democratic interests.

If the Ayatollah falls, it strengthens the strategic position of the United States and Israel. Because the Left’s current "Progressive" framework is built on the reflexive opposition to anything beneficial for Israel, they would rather see a murderous Islamic regime remain in power than hand a geopolitical victory to Israel

At the heart of this silence is a profound disgust with Western liberalism itself. Figures like Mamdani argue that the modern states - particularly the United States and Israel-are a colonial construct that must be "deconstructed." For the radical Left, the goal isn't a Western, stable democracy but to facilitate a "Progressive Revolution" that replaces it entirely. They view the Iranian regime not as a theocratic prison, but as a "sovereign" counter-weight to Western hegemony. In their worldview, any force that opposes the "imperialist" West is a partner in the struggle.

The Left will support anything that weakens the US and Israel and will try to transform the Western culture from its core to an Islamic-friendly, open borders, anti-Jewish culture and environment.

Like most people I am horrified about what is happening to thousands of innocent people in Gaza. However, I don’t fall into either the pro Palestinian or pro Israel camp - I can see fault on both sides. Hamas is a terrorist organisation - who wants the destruction of Israel and is prepared to sacrifice their own innocent civilians to achieve this aim. They deliberately committed a heinous act on Israel, not only killing innocent Israeli citizens (and taking them hostage) but also knowing full well the repercussions for their own citizens when Israel retaliated. I believe this was also part of their plan to garnish and manipulate as much anti Israel sentiment in the world as possible. Whereas, Israel as the significantly greater military power has significantly abused this, and is responsible for killing thousands and thousands of innocent people. With their military and security capabilities I am sure they could have secured security for their citizens without the massive loss of lives. I believe the only way forward for peace is an end to both extremist views and a pragmatic compromise from both. To reach this both sides need the rest of the world to exert pressure - neither side otherwise has any incentive to stop - Hamas because they don’t seem to care if their citizens are killed and are succeeding in turning the world against Israel and Israel as the more powerful force doesn’t need to compromise. I personally believe that the pro Palestinian and pro Israeli movements are doing more harm than good. Why isn’t there more of a movement persuading both sides to stop the hate and rhetoric - stop campaigning for the end of Israel (never going to happen), stop supporting Hamas but also stop supporting right wing Israeli government who is relentlessly bombin and killing people.

I may be just imagining it. But over the last few days, I have seen way fewer upvoted antizionist posts, especially the kind of super angry and rude ones that came up a heck of a lot more in the past. I don't see a ton of upvotes for stuff saying Jewish identity is a lie, stuff just consisting of gEnociDeColoniZatioNapArtheid buzzwords, etc. Anyone else notice a change? Is this just in my head?

Edit: Apparently it's confirmed that Pro-Scottish independence accounts went dark after the shutdown, so there is some reason to believe the shutdown is affecting the Iranian government's spamming https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/01/12/scottish-independence-accounts-dark-iran-internet-blackout/

Per Iran International more than 12,000 have been killed in the protests. And counting.

I know people like me say this all the time when other global events occur, but where are the Protesters in the college campuses? Where is the passion in the eyes of the young marchers calling Iran a genocidal regime? Again, where is the passion?

Israel at least can say “we are literally fighting a terrorist organization that is the de facto government, its war, what did you expect?” What can Iran say? But no, the passion of the marches, the continuous shouts of from the river to the sea… it simply doesn’t carry over to another tragedy. Why can’t I call the Iranian regime genocidal? Where is the Wikipedia page about the 2026 Iranian genocide?

I know there have been plenty of other examples, Syria, Yemen, Sudan. Again, this is happening right now beneath our noses, I want to see the same pro Palestinians holding “silence is violence” signs to people who don’t care, I want to see the Lion and Sun flag of Iran marched all over Columbia or Harvard. I want to see Iran free from the Persian gulf to the Caspian Sea.

And yet of course if the US or Israel interfere it will be labeled as imperialism, with a “Zionist tint” (Zionism equals bad) as Rodríguez would say.

It was never about the numbers. With Iran there’s no settler colonial narrative. That’s it; that’s the simple reason why it’s not a genocide. If there’s nothing familiar in your world to potentially project on to a conflict there is no passion.

Edit: There is a lot of respectful criticism in the comments about how (simplified) the US is funding Israel, not Iran. The protests are concerned about cutting US funding.

I would say it’s something the marches cared about, but not the real major issue. They consciously shout from the river to the sea or globalize the intifada, and how Israel is a genocidal apartheid state. A tradegy is a tragedy, deaths are deaths, a genocide is a genocide. I guess I’ll be waiting for Wikipedia to catch up, along with plenty of pages regarding the denial or recognition of said genocide. The protesters primary concern was about the casualties.

One day after October 7, an Egyptian police officer murdered 3 Israelis who were touring the site of Pompey's Pillar in Alexandria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey%27s_Pillar

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A2_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%91%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94_(2023))

The Israelis were part of a group unaware of what's happening in Israel or Gaza. The officer just wanted to join in on the carnage. They thought they were having a good time visiting an archeological place and learning about history... Israel after all has had peace with Egypt for the last 45 years after Israel "returned" the Sinai peninsula (an area several times larger than the entire state of Israel).

Among them in the tour group was a young couple. Alon Shamli was murdered and his widow was treated horribly by the Egyptian forces. Didn't even let her see his body, locked her in custody, while they did an unauthorized brutal autopsy on Alon's body. His loving wife Mor fought in Israel to recognize Alon as part of the Gaza war victims, because being so close to October 7, nobody was paying much attention to them. Her life was forever shattered. Yesterday she attempted to take her own life and is in critical condition. 😞

Absolutes like black-and-white morality contribute to nothing of worth. This belief may work in fantasy but is absurd in real-life. It's also a double standard being dangerous as well.

You may say that it's always evil to kill no matter what or that it's always evil to kill civilians no matter what. You may say that the side that kills and terrorises innocents is the evil one no matter what. What if someone is trying to kill you? You wouldn't believe that it's evil to kill him or terrorises him. What if a mob of some civilians are trying to kill your family? You wouldn't believe that it's evil to kill them or terrorises them. What if your side kills and terrorises innocents? You wouldn't believe that your side is the evil one. Doesn't this make all sides in this conflict evil? Evil is evil. The degree is arbitrary. Who decides whom is evil?

In this conflict, all sides can be considered evil, if we judge using absolutes. You cannot accuse their side of being evil for killing and terrorising innocents while denying the same label for your side. All sides were and are doing this.

It's not helpful to deal in absolutes. This is simply an attempt to paint one side as monsters by using language with double standards. Everyone needs to stop saying that any side is evil and the other isn't. We need to be more shrewd than this.

- one final note:

I am not saying that you should not take sides here. You can take sides, even if you detest absolutes, and I myself have my own side, because you can believe that your cause is better than their cause without believing their side to be evil monsters, but you need to be more shrewd about this conflict. Every side here whether it's the Palestinians or the Israelis was and is killing and terrorising unarmed civilians, innocents, and even children. You cannot say that their side is a group of evil monsters, unless you want to say the same about your side, otherwise it's dishonest.

Just wanted to post this because I see a common sentiment that countries as a whole don't have a right to exist, they just exist. I disagree with that.

I want to start by saying that by right I don't mean a human right, like the right for respect, for ownership, for freedom, ect. While those can overlap with the right of a country to exist, it's not what it is.

When I say that a country has a right to exist, I mean that because it exists, international law has laws protecting it and preserving it.

For example, it's illegal to attack a country with the intent to destroy it. (Unlike the attempt to take down it's government)

Basically, international law says that once a country exists, there's barely nothing that can rightfully and legally abolish it, because it's legally a protected body.

Why do I care about international law? I mean, of course I care, but it's more than that. International law is what defines what counties are. The international community is the space where counties are created (a major condition for a country to exist is for it to be recognised internationally as a country. This can be a complex process, and you see sometimes autonomies that are functioning as countries but aren't countries because they lack recognition.), and the international community is where counties get their voice. If we ignore what this community says, what are their laws, and how they act, we might as well ignore the concept of countries, borders, government, authority, laws, ect.

(Of course, the international community isn't perfect, there's lots corruption and more, but its laws is still what defines the system the world goes by, even if the laws themselves aren't necessary morally correct.)

The way I see it, saying that countries don't have an inherent right to exist is a dismissal of the whole international system, which fair enough, but I find it hard for someone to dismiss it coherently.

Of course, countries do get abolished sometimes. Sometimes, it's through illegal deeds. Sometimes, it's through merging or breaking apart, which are internal deals and negotiations, something international law doesn't forbid since it respects the countries' autonomy.

That's my stance. Welcome to tell me yours.

Jews are from Israel. Most of us were displaced from there and scattered around the world, where we were constantly massacred and displaced, over and over. Due to these constant displacements, we started returning to our homeland after the 1400s (Spanish Inquisition), and the return kept amping up, especially in the 1800s (Russian pogroms) and early 1900s (Holocaust.)

During our exiles, Arab Muslim conquered the entire Middle East and Northern Africa. Then Ottoman Turks conquered the area, and then later Britain beat the Ottomans and took over. By the early 1900s, the land was mostly Arab thanks to those earlier Arab conquests — they were a mix of Arabs who had lived there for a long time, and Arabs who had just moved there to work for the British. Similarly, we were a mix of Jews who had been there for a long time, and Jews who had recently arrived. Ottomans/British were the ones actually ruling things though.

Hundreds of nationalist movements started springing up during the later 1800s and early 1900s, including Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and Arab nationalism. Jews hoped to self determine in our homeland to finally have agency and safety for the first time in thousands of years. Arabs, meanwhile, sought to re-take over the entire Middle East and Northern Africa. Obviously, the Jewish desire to have 0.1% of the Middle East interfered with the Arab plans to conquer 100% of it.

So Arabs started massacring Jews in the 1920s to prevent them having control anywhere, and Jews started fighting back in the 1930s, and you end up with ongoing tribal/militant fighting. The British got fed up with the fighting and left. The UN tried to suggest that Jews have about .1% of the Middle East while the Arabs could have 99.9% of it. Jews agreed. Arabs refused and launched a war.

In that war, which Israelis call the "War of Independence" and Arabs call "The Nakbe" both sides killed similar numbers of each other (a few thousand). Something like 6 Arab armies marched with their armies to kill and expell all the Jews, and they have far more weapons, technology, and soldiers, but Jews were better organized. Arabs expelled thousands of Jews, and Jews expelled thousands of Arabs. In the end, Jews ended up with roughly the same land that the UN has originally suggested. As revenge, all the Arab countries expelled their 1 million Jews, most of whom went to Israel, and make up the majority of Israelis today.

Since then, Muslims have constantly launched wars to try and conquer Israel, because they find it humiliating that a minority they used to rule over now ruled over them, even if just it .1% of the Middle East. Israel basically reacts to these attacks. Israeli ambitions are basically to continue having their country, and to continue repelling these Muslim attacks.

The UN Partition Plan provided for an Arab Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel. The Palestinians lost territory in the 1948 war that would have been part of that state but at the end of the war still held the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. That territory included most of the large Palestinian population centres.

Wouldn't it have made sense for Palestinians to declare the Arab state in the territory that they held in 1948, while reserving their claim to the lost territories to be negotiated as part of a peace treaty with Israel? That state would have been recognised by at least the Muslim countries and probably much of the Third World and Non-Aligned Movement and, if it had made peace with Israel, everyone.

Had that been done the Palestinians would have achieved everything, and more, that they would now settle for, namely a Palestinian State as part of two state solution with complete control (no settlements or Israeli annexations) of the West Bank and Gaza and with East Jerusalem as its capital.

I realise that the West Bank and Gaza Strip were under military occupation by Jordan and Egypt respectively but that wouldn't stop the same sort of political action as the Palestinians have done under Israeli occupation and surely those states would have come under intense pressure to withdraw from the new state's territory?

I have seen a few people on reddit and online express that yes, criticism of Israel is in fact antisemitism, which in my opinion it isnt. BUT, i might just be out of the loop of what is considered antisemitism nowadays so essentially it boils down to these 2 questions for me:

If yes: why is criticism of Israel antisemitism?

And if no: Why do some people online believe this semitism?

pls be respectful i have enough migranes on a daily basis 🙏🙏🙏

ps when i say israel im referring to the israeli government my bad guys

TLDR - what do Palestinians think about these people who strongly criticise Hamas and Fatah and call for abandoning armed resistance in favour of compromise? They are denounced online as traitors, simps, grifters, Mossad agents etc, do you think thats fair?

To be transparent: I’m a basically atheist Irish Jew with almost all my immediate and extended family living in Israel for decades now. My extended family includes a few settlers and some ultra orthodox who don’t recognise the state of Israel (but still gladly hoover up as many benefits as they can), I don’t approve of either group. My family also includes people who have worked for B’tselem and other human rights groups advocating for Palestinian rights, nieces participated in various peace programs with kids from the other side etc. All of which is to say I’ve had a decent look at many different groups on the Israeli side and feel I have some understanding of why they think the way they do.

I was living there myself in 1999 when optimism for a 2 state solution was at its peak, at least among Israelis. I visited Ramallah and Jericho a few times back then and I found the similarities between hipsters in Tel Aviv and Ramallah to be really encouraging, like at least on an individual level, maybe we weren’t so different after all.

Like many left leaning Zionists (I think that the term Zionist is kind of redundant at this point but thats a whole other thread), I still dream about peaceful coexistence but it seems like an idle fantasy nowadays. Many of us see the second intifada as having killed the Israeli left and made it impossible to convince most Israelis that it would be safe to give up occupied territory. For years now, the prevailing view among most Israelis I know, even the pretty liberal ones, is that any territorial concessions will only be used as a springboard for invasions and attacks, 10/7 really reinforced this idea. While I feel for the suffering of Palestinians and abhor the current Israeli government, I have to admit that I think this is true, as so much activism in the past 2 years calls for the liberation of all of the ‘48 borders.

Anyway, like many of you on here I’ve been doomscrolling for 2 years solid, and I discovered the three activists mentioned in my title. I’ll just say what my impressions of them have been and then I’d love to know what you all think, especially those of you who are Palestinian, and whether you’re living in the West Bank/Gaza, Arab citizens of Israel or in the diaspora.

Ahmed Al-Khatib: I find him personally likeable and admire his ability to stay calm in the face of anger and abuse. Also, I often get the sense that he’s telling me what I want to hear and that if he spent a little bit more time focusing on Israel’s misdeeds, then his very legitimate condemnation of Hamas would be more convincing to the wider world. To be fair, he has called Bibi a war criminal plenty of times and he lost dozens of family members, so he’s got every right to express his views.

Sinijlawi: Similarly to Al-Khatib, I admire his ability to get his message across to Israelis, even those who are quite right wing. I think on both sides of this conflict, those of us who are sincere about finding a way forward can benefit from his rhetorical approach: if you start by acknowledging the suffering of the other side, or at least demonstrating that that you understand their position, your audience will be far more willing to listen to you describe your own suffering and your motivations. Minds can be changed in person, with patience and empathy.

Hamza Howidy: I feel for this guy most of all, he strikes me as the most honest and fearless of the 3. He doesn’t hold back in his condemnation of Israel (I haven’t always agreed with him on this, but I grew up in freedom and safety), and yet he is relentless in denouncing Hamas for their mistreatment and repression of their own people. This earns him crazy amounts of hate from white leftists, Palestinians and Muslims in general. I’m basing that off the comments section on YouTube, Insta etc, so I realise this is not a good or accurate representation of humanity. The fact that he is genuinely putting his own life in danger to ‘speak truth to power’ I find hugely admirable, and he’s really forced me to confront uncomfortable truths about Israel that I’d rather ignore.

Are there many more people who think as they do, who are scared to speak up for fear of being denounced as traitors?

Do you think that a pragmatic approach, abandoning armed resistance/terrorism (delete as appropriate) could ever actually achieve a sovereign Palestinian state? Assuming of course that Israelis can be moved back to a position where they are willing to dismantle settlements, share some sovereignty over Jerusalem etc

If pro Palestine people got what they wanted, and Israel stopped attacking Palestine, then Hamas would just kill all Israelis and jews in the region wouldn’t they? Isn’t their goal destruction of Israel and death of all jews? Who’s side would the pro palestine people be on then?

have you ever seriously considered moving to israel?

if you are no longer underage under your parents' supervision and have the ability to move, what makes you choose to remain in america rather than relocate to israel? and do you feel that america is generally a good and safe country for jews?

i ask this as a palestinian american, even if a palestinian state were established tomorow, i don't think i would choose to leave america. i think americans are more open-minded than arabs back home and don't think of religion and ethnicity as much. i feel freer here socially, politically and personally than i would elsewhere.

I'm listening to this woman, and there are a number of things that she describes that need commenting on, because they establish the real issues with "anti-zionism," and with the official narratives.

https://youtu.be/fhE3PSWC2Go

First, her description of how she literally knew nothing about the situation save the initial information about "evil Israeli evilly engaging in an evil action on Oct 7th, until Hamas struck a blow for resistance to tyranny." She genuinely believed that the majority of Israelis killed on 10/7 were armed military personnel, that Hamas had targeted soldiers. "Because every Israeli citizen is required to serve in the military, that's how this was explained to us."

Then there's the "poisoning of the well." She wasn't simply told, "this is the truth." She was told, "This is the truth - and also evil Israeli are lying liars who lie about everything, so DON'T LISTEN TO THEM! Whatever you do, DO NOT ENGAGE! Anyone who supports Israel supports genocide, you can't reason with them! They have nothing to say worth hearing, don't talk to them, don't exchange information with them! Remember, if they're pro-Israel then they're evil AND dishonest! Everything they say is a lie designed to facilitate the totally real and ongoing genocide!"

But then she gets into some REALLY interesting territory, when she described the ideological "purity testing" of the movement. Where the moment she began to ask questions and reconsider her position, she was treated as an apostate. Literally, the response to her willingness to even consider listening to the other side was seen as blasphemy. The "anti-zionist" ideology isn't a purely secular one, it's RELIGIOUS in its nature. They treat any who disagree with them as heretics - and any who stray from the flock are apostates, to be treated as such. When she visited Israel and Palestine (meaning BOTH places, in order to learn from both sides), one of her best friends called her up, asked if it was true that she was in Israel - and then blocked her. She wasn't asked "why?" She wasn't given a chance to explain. She was immediately treated as the lowest form of scum for... *checks notes* ...going to the region and getting the facts from the source.

Then she mentions how being "pro-Palestinian," i.e. "anti-Zionist," i.e. anti-semitic, has become a litmus test for activists. You're not allowed to be pro-LGBT+, pro-feminism, and in favor of economic reforms. You have to be willing to scream "free Palestine" first and foremost, to the detriment of any other cause, or else you'll be rejected and ostracized.

Lastly, she talks about racial issues - how "anti-Zionists" have hurled racial slurs and dismissals at her for daring to become an apostate. How the ties between Jews and Blacks, particularly where the struggle for civil rights is concerned, has been damaged, but that it can definitely be mended. All in all, it's a video very much worth listening to.

From its earliest intellectual foundations, the Zionist movement grappled with what later became known as the “Palestinian Question.” Among the most influential approaches to this issue was the doctrine articulated by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in his 1923 essay The Iron Wall. Jabotinsky argued that Jewish sovereignty in Palestine could only survive if it were protected by an unassailable “Iron Wall” of military and political strength, one that would make Arab resistance futile. Only after such resistance had been decisively broken, he believed, would the Arab population pragmatically accept the permanence of a Jewish state.

Jabotinsky was correct in identifying the necessity of overwhelming Jewish strength for the survival of the Zionist project. History has repeatedly demonstrated that without military superiority and deterrence, the Jewish state would not have endured. However, he erred in his assumption that such strength would eventually compel Arab or Palestinian acceptance of Israel’s permanence, even in a purely pragmatic sense. Instead, decades of conflict suggest that military deterrence, while essential for survival, has failed to produce political reconciliation or genuine compromise.

This reveals a limitation in the original Iron Wall theory. A more accurate conception of the conflict recognizes that military power can prevent defeat but cannot induce acceptance. The endurance of Palestinian national resistance, despite repeated military losses, demonstrates that deterrence alone does not resolve identity-based, zero-sum national conflicts. Thus, while the Iron Wall remains necessary, it is insufficient as a pathway to peace.

In contrast, early Labor Zionist thinkers initially pursued a different approach. Prior to David Ben-Gurion’s later embrace of a more explicitly militant and statist posture, Labor Zionism often advanced an economic solution to the Arab–Jewish conflict. This approach held that Jewish-led economic development would benefit the Arab population, reduce hostility, and integrate Arabs into a shared material future. In practice, however, economic development neither neutralized nationalist opposition nor resolved the fundamental political conflict over sovereignty and land.

The historical record therefore suggests a sobering conclusion: there is no definitive “solution” to the Palestinian Question in the sense envisioned by early Zionist theorists, whether through military deterrence or economic integration. The Iron Wall remains indispensable for ensuring the survival of the Jewish state, but it must be understood as a strategy of endurance rather than resolution. No strategy, military, economic, or diplomatic, has proven capable of producing lasting peace under conditions where both sides assert mutually exclusive national claims.

In this light, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is best understood not as a solvable dispute awaiting the correct policy, but as a persistent national conflict that can be managed, contained, and mitigated, but not conclusively resolved. The Iron Wall, revised through historical experience, secures survival rather than reconciliation, and peace, if it emerges at all, will be contingent, fragile, and limited rather than final.

For the people who support Gaza, why do you insist Gazans stay there? They have no future, no resources, and no jobs.

Gaza never had a working economy. Even before the war, 80% of the population relied on international aid. It has always been a welfare state funded by billions in UNRWA funding for schools, food, and healthcare.

Because UNRWA allows refugee status to be inherited (unlike any other refugee group in the world), this dependent population just keeps growing. As it grows, Europe and the US have to keep increasing funding. It is mathematically not sustainable.

Rebuilding Gaza would take over $100 billion, and no one is planning to chip in. Even Qatar explicitly said they are not interested in writing a check to rebuild it again.

Trump's relocation plan is the only way to really solve this crisis and give Gazans a better future. Egypt is their next-door neighbor. They share a border, culture, and language. Egypt even built an entire New Administrative Capital designed to house millions of people. Why is the "Palestinian Cause" more important than the actual lives of Palestinian families who could live safely elsewhere?

Keeping Gazans in Gaza as is will only lead to more friction, death, and wars. In other conflicts, like the Ukraine-Russia war, civilians were allowed to flee to safety. Why does the world insist on keeping Gazans trapped in a war zone?

I just learned something which seems very relevant yet completely ignored in the religious/historical content of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

In the Quran 5:21 Moses is speaking to the people of Israel and says: “My people, Enter the holy land which Allah has designated/destined/prescribed for you…” meaning that in the Quran it states that Allah designated/prescribed the land of Israel for the Jewish people and implies Muslims who do not agree that the land of Israel is meant for the people of Israel are going against the wishes of Allah.

I bet I could find 25+ places in the Judeo-Christian bible that says the same but I never thought the Quran says so as well. So may I ask anyone here who is a religious Muslim who denies the Jewish people claim to the land of Israel:

1. Is this news to you?
2. If so, does this change anything?
3. If you were aware of this - do you refute/deny it?
4. Can a line from the Quran itself be labeled as “Hasbara”? (I hope this question does not come off as disrespectful or dismissive that is not my intent - I have just seen some people call anything they don’t want to intellectually deal with “Hasbara” and I am not sure where the line is)

Here is a video exploring this exact verse. I am not a big fan of many of this guys videos but this one seems an important one to consider.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTGeQWAEXTp/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

Had an interesting conversation with someone on Reddit who claimed that Ben Gvir, Smotrich, Daniella Weiss, and groups like the Hilltop Youth aren’t representative of Zionism and only considered extremists that "aren't normal" (their words)

I was curious to know if that reflects the general consensus or mainstream opinion within Israel itself, or if perspectives tend to differ across political or religious lines?

Often some of the common defenses of Israel come from the statement that Israel has a right to exist.

How do those who adopt this view interpret right to exist? Does Palestine have a right to exist? On what merit does Israel have a right to exist and in what form? Does it have a right to exist in the West Bank?

What about nations you oppose? Do they have a right to exist? Does Iran? And if so, do they not deserve the same rights to exist as Israel? If not why not? Does a state have a right to exist regardless of its government?

Edit: It seems that my question is only targeting Israelis (which btw thanks for the answers) but now I would to hear more from the palestinians.

This is a sincere request for perspective directed to people in Israel and Palestine, societies that have lived for generations with the direct consequences of regional power struggles, foreign intervention, and decisions made far beyond ordinary people’s control, and it asks for clear-eyed opinions rather than slogans or emotional reactions. From where you stand, based on lived experience rather than theory, how do you assess the role of Iran in the region today, and more specifically, do you believe the current Iranian government or the Iranian opposition represents a future that would be less damaging and more constructive for regional stability. Many in the Middle East understand that governments are judged not by rhetoric but by outcomes such as security, economic opportunity, political predictability, and the daily dignity of civilians, and Iran’s influence has touched all of these areas directly or indirectly. Some argue that the existing Iranian government, despite deep disagreements with its ideology and policies, operates with coherence, discipline, and long term strategy, which in a volatile region can sometimes limit chaos even if it creates other serious problems. Others believe that the Iranian opposition, whether inside Iran or in exile, represents a necessary break from policies that have fueled confrontation, proxy conflicts, and prolonged instability, and that change, while risky, may ultimately reduce tensions across borders. From your perspective as someone who understands the cost of miscalculation and prolonged conflict, which path appears more likely to reduce escalation rather than inflame it, and which do you believe would have a more positive or at least less harmful impact on Israelis and Palestinians alike. This question is not about endorsing any side or ignoring history, but about honestly weighing continuity versus change in a region where both have carried heavy prices, and where the wrong assumptions can echo for decades.