Hi Nonzionism, this was my original deleted comment that started the shitstorm in the comments section.
Mazal tov on the baby!
I was recently at a political philosophy program with many EHC non-Jews. When the conversation inevitably veered to israel, and some students had strong criticisms of israel, I felt all the nonzionism leave my body and became a hasbarist. How do you think non Zionists should interact with non-jews skeptical of Zionism and the war in Gaza? Is non Zionism too esoteric to actually function in discussions with non Jews? I fear telling an israel skeptical non-Jew that you are a “non-Zionist” will turn them into an anti-Zionist.
My experience is that people mostly respond best to honesty. I frequently correct misapprehensions people have about Israel or the history of Zionism, and I think that if you aren't bogged down defending things that are indefensible or arguing things that aren't true, you get further.
There is the problem that people will tend to pick the middle between two positions, so if the pro-Palestine voices are very extreme and the pro-Israel voices are moderate, then the center ground becomes by default pro Palestine, but I think there is a ready solution to this: be extremely negative towards Palestinian nationalism. This is actually much easier when you are no longer defending Zionism.
I'll weigh in as a gentile here. You're not wrong that most gentiles will treat "Zionist" as meaning "person who supports Israel/thinks Israel should exist" and parse the negative as the opposite. It's thus probably not a name I'd wave around. Having said that, this blog is more effective at Hasbara than most Hasbara.
Anglos really really don't like people arguing forcefully on their own behalf, but this is never expressed as an explicit cultural value and a lot of Jews tend to fall foul of it, making most Jews trying to argue on behalf of Israel seem tone-deaf, partisan and (greatest sin of all) *unreasonable.* The response is generally to react against the speaker in question, and plays in to the stereotype of Jews being self-serving and sharp-elbowed.
If you phrase the response as, "Sticking a bunch of Jews on a strip of land in the Middle East was a basically dumb idea, but they're there now and that's probably better than creating an order-of-magnitude larger refugee crisis/orgy of violence than the current one," you'll both encapsulate the essence of (secular) non Zionism and establish yourself as arguing in basically good faith. Your interlocutor may still reply with random ill-informed crap, but if they're bright it can still be a fun conversation once you've taken most of the heat out.
This will work much better than, "How dare you not care passionately about how [integer] number of Jews were brutally murdered by an evil death cult for no reason?" or a long spiel about what the UN did or didn't say 80 years ago (if you want to hear how this comes across to a gentile observer, ask a Chinaman about one of their territorial disputes and they'll hit most of the same notes). That may be the natural response, but the reality is that the average gentile just writes it off as, "Hey ho, bad shit happens to foreigners, a bit like that famine in [African country]." Sticking to dispassionate, considering-both-sides and making concessions where appropriate reasonableness will get you further.
Gaza has turned into some combination of Iraq/Afghanistan c. 2005. An occupying force pressing on purely because they are already there. No strategic objectives being pursued anymore. Bored soldiers killing people because they can.
The US was big enough to brush off international opprobrium but Israel is on the brink of being ostracised for a generation over this. Where I live in Europe I weekly see anti-Israeli demonstrations, Palestine flags everywhere, and Gaza basically having displaced all other foreign policies.
The only thing Israel can do is 1) write off the hostages and withdraw; 2) build a massive defensive structure (moats, walls, more perhaps) around Gaza and move forward on that basis returning rocket fire as per 2006-2022.
2. is expensive but feasible, 1. probably impossible politically.
Israel was attacked by Hamas, thus starting the current war. Iraq never invaded or attacked the U.S. and the U.S.'s invasion of it was based on bad intelligence. And that war lasted for an entire decade.
Yeah, like a lot of the world, your sympathy for Israel and Jews went on for a full 24 hours after 1200 of them were slaughtered by a terrorist org in 1 day. You are absolutely not alone in that, but it’s hardly surprising.
Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and all the leadership who were involved in that attack were either dead or in Pakistan by the end of 2001. But we still stayed there for another 20 years because elements of the Taliban continued to wage an insurgency. Israel faces a similar predicament. The top brass in Hamas who planned 10/7 are essentially all dead, but because some Hamas members are still there the war must go on. The problem is that as long as people's family members are getting killed in Gaza there will be no shortage of people signing up for Hamas.
The difference between you and NonZionism is that you (a) have a sense of entitlement and (b) moralize too much, whereas he mostly avoids these errors.
This comment is an example of (b). Approved Posture was making the obvious point that it's not clear how this war currently serves Israel's interests. You reply with an irrelevant, moralizing point about who bears responsibility for the beginning of the war.
For (a), I refer to your responses to Critic of the Cathedral elsewhere.
>The Religious Zionists in the government are not per se running military strategy, but they are able to do two things. The first is to block any alternative military strategy in Gaza by threatening to bolt the coalition. The second is to push for ‘more’ or ‘stronger’ military action. In combination, this allows them to effectively drive policy by default, and the simplest explanation for their repeated statements that they are in the process of emptying out Gaza is that they believe they are successfully doing so.
The third thing they can do is prevent the government from letting them run wild in the West Bank or enforce the law against Dati Leumi people acting out for nationalist reasons. Dati Leumi cossacks can launch pogroms in West Bank villages without the army arresting a single perpetrator. Within Israel, Dati Leumi protestors can break into army bases to protect soldiers accused of rape, and can block aid trucks from crossing into Gaza, also all without a single arrest.
The fourth thing they can do is articulate government policy as clearing out Gaza for Jewish Settlement because Bibi has surrendered any ability to tell the world that Israel's policy is otherwise. In a normal functioning government, if a minister of the government, stated that the goal of the current operation was to ethnically cleanse Gaza and replace its residents with Jews, you would expect the Prime Minister to issue a forceful rejection of that policy and clearly articulate a contrary policy. You would also expect a censure of that minister, and some kind of threat to remove him from his post. (Imagine if Eliyahu had accused Israel of committing war crimes, chas v'chalilah.) Instead, it passes without comment. Ayyy, you might say that Eliyahu holds a BS cabinet post, a paper ministry, but the Prime Minister has long ignored similar comments of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Security. Not to mention he tolerates ministers of his own party, make equally bizarre pronouncements, e.g. that Israel should assassinate the Syrian head of state, or crow on Twitter about blowing up the Syrian Ministry of Defense on live Syrian TV. It's just a complete hefker velt, so long as nobody crosses the line of threatening Bibi's job or freedom.
We are sick of your genocidal shit. Govern yourselves according to international law, which does not mean doing whatever you can sweep under the rug or blame on someone else.
Fuck Palestine and fuck your self righteous post modern liberal hippocrisy. You couldn't point to Palestine on the map if your life depended on it. There was never an independent sovereign political entity known as Palestine under Arab rule in history. Even if there were, that is irrelevant. The land of Israel belongs to the Jews and I do not give a fuck what you think about that. Go along, piss off now, the adults are talking now.
There needs to be a coup within the IDF. The Dati Leumi and Charedi soldiers should refuse all orders and mutinize their commanders. No more pointless suicide missions. No more spineless leftists calling the shots.
What would the hypothetical new generals do here? Bomb the Rafah crossing and expel the population of Gaza into Egypt? Do you have a contingency plan for what do if Egypt tries to punt them back?
What's sad is that all of this has been obvious for a very long time.
In some sense, the modern state of Israel died on December 29th, 2022. To me, the appointment of David Zini truly marked the first official day of the new Israel, with the interval between the 37th Knesset and that moment serving as a brief transition period before the abject awfulness to come. There won't be pager explosions or sneaky drone attacks launched from Iran in David Zini's Israel.
It makes me profoundly sad how this has been enabled by so many Jews—for the hilariously dumb reason that people seem unable to wrap their heads around the simple reality that:
- The world can be filled with hypocritical people, including many anti-Semites, who hate Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with its conduct, treat Israel differently than all other states, the reality of how awful Hamas is (and dysfunction in Palestinian society), make claims which are factually wrong (or unfair), etc.
AND
- Israel can still be doing moronic things that are indefensible (from a self-interest standpoint).
It's truly sad that individuals like Russ Roberts cannot process both realities at the same time. In fairness, many Jews have stopped talking about Israel because they realize how insane the country has gotten, so the ones who still engage in dumb hasbara are the ones without the faculties for greater comprehension.
As long as the majority of Jewish Israelis belong to one of these three groups:
1. Haredim who only care about supporting ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel;
2. Religious Zionists who only care about establishing a Jewish supremacist state in the entire land of Israel; and
3. XXXX (I don't have a good name for this group, but you know exactly who I am referring to) who will sacrifice any vision of Israel simply to remain "in power" and indulge their emotional impulses;
Israel will not be able to escape this mess or secure a less moronic future. Sadly, given current demographics, this seems unlikely to change within the prevailing paradigm of our world and time.
You forgot the AND Israel can still be doing morally detestable things. And you forgot the group YYYY that engage in dumb midrash in defense of Judaism, an ancient genocidal slaver cult, rather than just renouncing it and leaving. I don't think they lack the faculties for comprehension, I just think they lack the will to use them in the context of the cult they are pathologically devoted to.
Just curious, since you live in Israel and hold an Israeli passport and feel the need to comment on the IDF in this manner: what unit of the IDF did you serve in? Also, let's say for a moment that every single point you listed in this article about the faults of the IDF is correct--how does any of that end the war? What would be your idea to end the war?
I was not asked to do army service when I immigrated. I raised the issue once, and they said because of my age and having a child it wasn't relevant. I mildly regret this because I think it would have been better for my spoken Hebrew and acclimatization than Ulpan.
I have never suggested any such thing. I criticize the IDF all the time and I’ve never come close to serving in any military in any capacity. But I do believe that if Mr NonZionism is going to take it upon himself to drag the IDF in this manner, he should provide some suggestions on how the war should end.
Simple: you have 24 hours to bring the hostages to us. If you do not comply we will atom bomb Gaza. Just to show we are not bluffing we will be executing our prisoners one by one live on TV. If you continue to be stubborn after 24 hours we will flatten the middle east at random.
I agree with some of your points to varying degrees. But going to from that to calling Israel a 'borderline failed state' is roughly akin to pointing out that someone is overweight, has high blood pressure, and needs to exercise more and then declaring them to be deathly ill.
“In as much as collective responsibility can ever make sense as a moral doctrine, they have merited what has happened to them.”
What is wrong with you??
The last election in Gaza was 19 years ago. Hamas quickly moved to murder its opponents and threaten all who would dissent, and LESS THAN 10% of the current population of Gaza ever voted for Hamas. The other >90% have zero responsibility for bringing that criminal gang to power, and even the <10% may quickly have regretted their vote and don’t necessarily support Hamas now.
If you assume the bulk of the population supports Hamas because Hamas had the capacity to raise a crowd that filled streets, you suck at math. If you believe “opinion polls” claiming that most Gazans support Hamas, I can tell you as a professional opinion pollster that they are either bad polls or are being misinterpreted. The scale of the destruction and human suffering in Gaza is far far far far FAR disproportionate to anything Gazans have done to Israel, and is being exacted on people almost all of whom are innocent. Shame on you!
The polls were bad because the people being polled could not be confident of the anonymity of their responses, and they were misinterpreted because opposition to Israel and support of fighting back against the occupying power were not distinguished from support for Hamas itself.
If Palestinians only express support in polls for their leadership out of fear, why is Hamas always more popular in polls of Palestinians in the West Bank than the PA or Fatah, if Hamas is suppressed by the PA, there?
And why are Fatah and the PA more popular in Gaza than in the West Bank, if they rule the latter, but are banned in the former?
And why would polls show that Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other non-Hamas terror groups (who would often attack Israel while Hamas had ceasefires with Israel, thus being perceived as more committed to terrorism than Hamas) command higher popularity than Hamas?
And why would Al Qassam Brigades (the military branch of Hamas which carries out terror attacks) command higher popularity than "Hamas," when it's the latter which rules, not the former?
Many years of polling of Palestinians paints a rather clear picture, in which Palestinians broadly support the destruction of Israel, but like many people all over the world, often resent the day to day experience of governance. Thus, Islamic Jihad, which is viewed as the most committed to killing the Jews, and isn't responsible for day to day gripes that Palestinians have with governance, polls the highest everywhere, while Palestinians in the West Bank rank Hamas more highly than Palestinians in Gaza, since Hamas is responsible for day to day affairs for the latter, not the former, while throughout, when we break up Hamas into the terror component (AQB) and the governance component, the former is wildly popular, while it's the latter that loses some support.
Maybe you could comment a little on the poll here? I'm not sure who runs AWRAD precisely, but I remember a twitter thread citing survey data in Arabic that indicated 77% of palestinians wanted the "one people solution", which made my eyes bug out a little.
That link references the poll whose archived version is found in the second link in my comment. It doesn't contain a 77% figure or a question that seems equivalent to the one you're referencing.
If you're curious about polls of Palestinians on support for positions, rather than support for groups, which I focused on in my previous comment, that can be found in the first link in my comment, from which a number of conclusions can be gleaned.
One of them is that Palestinians broadly support terror against Israel and another is that contrary to the notion that increased Israeli oppression leads to increased support for terror among Palestinians, the opposite is often the case.
Regarding the first point, we see for example, that in December 2023, months after Israel began its crushing aerial and ground campaigns against Gaza, in response to the question of whether it was the right decision to launch the October 7 attack, Palestinians response of correct / incorrect was 72% / 22%.
Regarding the second point, we can look at the difference in poll results of Gazans and WB Palestinians. WB Palestinians have always had a higher standard of living than Gazans, and now that Gaza is a war zone, the difference is obviously much larger.
We might expect that the harsher conditions in Gaza would lead to less support for terror there, but the polls indicate that that isn't always the case, and often it's the opposite. In the December poll about support for the October 7 attack, for example, among WB Palestinians, the correct / incorrect response was 82% / 12%, while among Gazans, it was "only" 57% / 37%.
This seems explainable by WB Palestinians being more insulated from the consequences of the attack.
Similarly, as the war dragged on, and the destruction of Gaza escalated Palestinian assessment of the decision to launch the attack dropped, such that in the most recent poll from May 2025, the correct / incorrect response was "only" 50% / 40%.
On the question of whether a Palestinian state should be established alongside Israel, known as a two-state solution, 40% of Palestinians expressed support compared to 32% in September 2023.
46% support a return to confrontations and armed intifada vs. 51% supporting that 7 months ago.
As to the question of the best means of achieving the goals of ending Israeli occupation and building an independent state: Negotiation / Peaceful popular resistance / Armed struggle, "armed struggle" has always been the most popular response.
In September 2023, the response was: 20% / 24% / 53%, while in May 2025, it was 33% / 20% / 41%.
Is there something else, in particular, you'd like me to comment on in regard to these polls?
> "It doesn't contain a 77% figure or a question that seems equivalent to the one you're referencing"
I'm pretty sure it's on Page 23 of the Tables of Results? At least according to google translate, 77% of west-bankers responded to "Do you support the one-state or two-state solution in its following forms?" with "A Palestinian state from the river to the sea". (The percentages were a little different in Gaza, but this was in contrast to one-state or two-state solutions for two peoples.)
I this think was polled in Nov 2023, though admittedly this seems a little at odds with what you're quoting about support in Sep 23.
> "On the question of whether a Palestinian state should be established alongside Israel, known as a two-state solution, 40% of Palestinians expressed support compared to 32% in September 2023."
> "Is there something else, in particular, you'd like me to comment on in regard to these polls?"
Well, I was kinda wondering if AWRAD (or anyone else) is a particularly trustworthy source, who funds these polling orgs, etc.? I have leftist relations that I occasionally try to deprogram on these topics, so if these orgs are funded by something resembling an impartial third party it might help to make the source more credible?
The scale of the destruction and human suffering in Gaza is far far far far FAR disproportionate to anything Gazans have done to Israel, and is being exacted on people almost all of whom are innocent. Shame on you!
"Presently, though, Israel is doing whatever it is doing for no purpose that can be articulated."
This is a very dumb thing to say. There's a very straightforward reason to keep fighting Hamas as long as they're still dug in, not to mention still holding Israeli hostages: to prevent them from regrouping and planning another October 7th. You don't need to *agree* with it, but pretending it's some Ben Gvir-ist fever dream is idiotic.
Here's Yossi Yehoshua. (He's from that fringe settler-extremist internet site known as YNET.)
כך או אחרת, אם היעד הוא אכן "השמדת חמאס", אזי הציבור צריך לדעת את מה שאומרים קצינים בכירים: זאת מטרה שההשגה שלה תימשך שנים, וכל מי שטוען אחרת לא מבין על מה הוא מדבר. לעזה יש זמן. למעשה, זה כל מה שנשאר לה.
In general, you seem to be incapable of comprehending that there are actually well informed mainstream military correspondents who don't agree with your basic thesis: I.e. that since some legitimately crazy people want to keep fighting the war in Gaza, it therefore follows that *only* crazy people think that.
Sure, an extended counter-insurgency campaign to destroy Hamas to avert some kind of attack 15 or so years into the future has a rationale but, a I already said:
a) the IDF does not have the capabilities for this, and demonstrates no desire to develop these capabilities
b) a successful counter-insurgency must have a political end goal, and the government refuses to articulate one (while allowing government ministers to assert that the goal is in fact something completely unrelated)
c) government ministers continually obstruct or veto any constructive strategy towards a successful counter insurgency.
I think a fair amount of what might be going on is the sunk cost fallacy. It is impossible to eradicate Hamas and even if you eradicated Hamas, that does not remove from Gaza anyone who has a motive to commit violence against Israel on an October 7 scale (in fact you might have increased it) under a different name. But we've sunk so much into this war (both in terms of Israeli and Palestinian casualties) on the theory that the only reason we're doing this is eradicating Hamas that if you stop before eradicating Hamas that means all those people died for nothing. So the killing continues.
That's why they need to relocate the Palestinians to Jordan. It's the only humane solution. Like they did with the Germans after WW2. The cycle of violence must end and clearly these are two groups of people that cannot live next to each other.
There is the slight problem that Jordan is still nextdoor to Israel, although maybe not parked as close to major population centres. Also, how would you propose to persuade King Abdullah to take them without triggering a war?
That's possible, but it's also possible there's no non-suicidal alternative to persisting. At the end of the day, it's not a casino. You can walk away from the table, but wherever you go, the table is still there.
We could argue about this - I don't even think it was "suicidal" before October 7 to have Hamas in charge of Gaza - it was just a very big screwup to have Hamas in charge of Gaza and no serious defense around the strip. Presumably it's not a mistake they will make again.
But I don't think any of the relevant decision makers actually think it's suicidal to walk away. The IDF clearly wants out and Bibi has floated ceasefires and an end to the war at various times.
No quarrel with your first paragraph. But the second ignores the impossibility of walking away without the return of Israel's hostages, not to mention the inevitability of the continuation of the international political war against Israel as it continues to blockade Gaza, only more aggressively this time.
There might be some other kind of "walking away" that would overcome these obstacles, but I haven't seen it described here.
Oh by "walk away" I assume you meant a ceasefire that sees the return of the hostages as a condition for ending the war.
As to whether there is a future Gaza embargo and how severe it should be, that's an area where the continuing international pressure is not going to get better for Israel the longer the war goes on.
2 points 1) you're right to mention sde temain truly a test of policy towards the 'bad apples' and the result was frankly terrifying and disgusting. 2) maybe I'm overly panglossian but a new election giving a Bennett style govt could surely sort out a lot of this?
The main reason for the state of the discipline in the Israeli army is that its soldiers see they are being led by a PM who is willing to degrade Israel's strength both inwards and outwards in the service of the supreme purpose of staying in power. A PM that is comfortable manning his government with lunatics (Ben Gvir et al.), parasites (the ultra-orthodox) and incompetents (all the others - and this is not an exaggeration). This, for a war-time government that must meet impossible challenges, and whose decisions affect the soldier's lives in the most direct way possible. Under such circumstances, of course many of the normies will bow out and leave the army to the extremist elements.
The most despicable part of the government are the ultra-orthodox, who should know better because they are not stupid. But in characteristic Chareidi way, they don't care that they are weakening the edifice that sustains and protects them. Their fatalism and belief that they represent the only authentic Judaism makes them, in their way, the part of Israeli society most similar to the Hamas jihadists.
It's a diverse movement, or it least it was. But it has degenerated into a belief that the prime religious imperative is building more homes in Yehuda and Shomron and this overrides everything else. I plan to write about it at more length.
What would be wrong with the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza and resettlement. I get the downsides, but is not “one really bad day” ultimately something people will get over faster than “a new tragedy every single day forever”.
You could easily exterminate the entire population in a day. I don't know about ethics.
Israel could issue an ultimatum to Egypt saying that if they don't take them in by such a such a date they will kill every single person in Gaza. If Egypt takes them, great. If they don't, kill them.
What if they are garbage genetic and cultural trash that can't build a civilization and would genocide you if they could and commit the maximum amount of genocide they are pathetically capable of and every opportunity they are given.
And then Israel loses all international support, and potentially risks getting South African like sanctions. That's why they are conducting the war like they are. Even though horrific images come out of Gaza, they can still blame Hamas directly or indirectly.
But ironically the more people call it a genocide (when it isn't) the less incentive Israel has to not just do an actual genocide and get it over with once and for all.
Nuking Gaza would be a genocide by any reasonable definition. I don't find the term useful, but to nuke the strip would remove all doubt.
The fundamental problem with your worldview is ignoring the geopolitical implications. Israel needs NATO support in the short and long term, and if that were to go away Israel would be in a bad position. And that's not to mention that Israel has at all times a sword of Damocles hanging over it: its most productive citizens have 2 or more passports. They can jump ship at any time.
Yes, there are downsides to the strategy. There are also downsides to the status quo. It may be that the downsides to the strategy outweighs the downsides to the status quo.
My point is simple.
1) What's going on isn't actually genocide.
2) The more people call it genocide and treat Israel like its genocide, the less incentive Israel has to not engage in actual genocide.
If your going to pay the price of genocide either way, you might as well gain the benefits of genocide (never dealing with this fucking trash ever again).
It's possible that if Israel did a genocide it would become a pariah. But it might become a pariah anyway. And there have been a lot of genocides in history and after a certain amount of time people just shrug and move on.
It's not like anyone actually likes the Palestians. Even their allies treat them like the plague and won't let them in even as they claim they are being genocided.
Oh you're discussing actually killing them all. I cannot imagine a way that would happen that wouldnt end in the destruction of the Israeli state in less than a generation and in a manner where most of the Jewish population has no one willing to take them.
You are correct it would probably be less evil than the current strategy but the only way to do it (forcing them over the Egyptian border and overwhelm the Egyptian border guards) would probably destroy relations with Egypt and possibly end the '78 treaty and even further alienate western public opinion.
Congratulations on the baby!
congratulations on your baby
Hi Nonzionism, this was my original deleted comment that started the shitstorm in the comments section.
Mazal tov on the baby!
I was recently at a political philosophy program with many EHC non-Jews. When the conversation inevitably veered to israel, and some students had strong criticisms of israel, I felt all the nonzionism leave my body and became a hasbarist. How do you think non Zionists should interact with non-jews skeptical of Zionism and the war in Gaza? Is non Zionism too esoteric to actually function in discussions with non Jews? I fear telling an israel skeptical non-Jew that you are a “non-Zionist” will turn them into an anti-Zionist.
My experience is that people mostly respond best to honesty. I frequently correct misapprehensions people have about Israel or the history of Zionism, and I think that if you aren't bogged down defending things that are indefensible or arguing things that aren't true, you get further.
There is the problem that people will tend to pick the middle between two positions, so if the pro-Palestine voices are very extreme and the pro-Israel voices are moderate, then the center ground becomes by default pro Palestine, but I think there is a ready solution to this: be extremely negative towards Palestinian nationalism. This is actually much easier when you are no longer defending Zionism.
I'll weigh in as a gentile here. You're not wrong that most gentiles will treat "Zionist" as meaning "person who supports Israel/thinks Israel should exist" and parse the negative as the opposite. It's thus probably not a name I'd wave around. Having said that, this blog is more effective at Hasbara than most Hasbara.
Anglos really really don't like people arguing forcefully on their own behalf, but this is never expressed as an explicit cultural value and a lot of Jews tend to fall foul of it, making most Jews trying to argue on behalf of Israel seem tone-deaf, partisan and (greatest sin of all) *unreasonable.* The response is generally to react against the speaker in question, and plays in to the stereotype of Jews being self-serving and sharp-elbowed.
If you phrase the response as, "Sticking a bunch of Jews on a strip of land in the Middle East was a basically dumb idea, but they're there now and that's probably better than creating an order-of-magnitude larger refugee crisis/orgy of violence than the current one," you'll both encapsulate the essence of (secular) non Zionism and establish yourself as arguing in basically good faith. Your interlocutor may still reply with random ill-informed crap, but if they're bright it can still be a fun conversation once you've taken most of the heat out.
This will work much better than, "How dare you not care passionately about how [integer] number of Jews were brutally murdered by an evil death cult for no reason?" or a long spiel about what the UN did or didn't say 80 years ago (if you want to hear how this comes across to a gentile observer, ask a Chinaman about one of their territorial disputes and they'll hit most of the same notes). That may be the natural response, but the reality is that the average gentile just writes it off as, "Hey ho, bad shit happens to foreigners, a bit like that famine in [African country]." Sticking to dispassionate, considering-both-sides and making concessions where appropriate reasonableness will get you further.
Decent people are horrified by what Hamas did and lost sympathy for them after that.
Most people just aren't decent. Especially not the younger generation.
Everyone react differently. I’m not Jewish and I lost all sympathy for the Gazans after October 7. There is no one right way to defend Israel.
Mazel Tov! Wonderful news.
Gaza has turned into some combination of Iraq/Afghanistan c. 2005. An occupying force pressing on purely because they are already there. No strategic objectives being pursued anymore. Bored soldiers killing people because they can.
The US was big enough to brush off international opprobrium but Israel is on the brink of being ostracised for a generation over this. Where I live in Europe I weekly see anti-Israeli demonstrations, Palestine flags everywhere, and Gaza basically having displaced all other foreign policies.
The only thing Israel can do is 1) write off the hostages and withdraw; 2) build a massive defensive structure (moats, walls, more perhaps) around Gaza and move forward on that basis returning rocket fire as per 2006-2022.
2. is expensive but feasible, 1. probably impossible politically.
Nice try, but no.
Israel was attacked by Hamas, thus starting the current war. Iraq never invaded or attacked the U.S. and the U.S.'s invasion of it was based on bad intelligence. And that war lasted for an entire decade.
“C. 2005” is what my point hinges on. At a certain point you have to disregard why you’re there and ask yourself if you still need to be.
On 08/10/23 I had massive reserves of sympathy for 🇮🇱. I don’t have much left now.
Yeah, like a lot of the world, your sympathy for Israel and Jews went on for a full 24 hours after 1200 of them were slaughtered by a terrorist org in 1 day. You are absolutely not alone in that, but it’s hardly surprising.
Just because starting the war was justified doesn't necessarily mean that the way we are continuing it is.
Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and all the leadership who were involved in that attack were either dead or in Pakistan by the end of 2001. But we still stayed there for another 20 years because elements of the Taliban continued to wage an insurgency. Israel faces a similar predicament. The top brass in Hamas who planned 10/7 are essentially all dead, but because some Hamas members are still there the war must go on. The problem is that as long as people's family members are getting killed in Gaza there will be no shortage of people signing up for Hamas.
The difference between you and NonZionism is that you (a) have a sense of entitlement and (b) moralize too much, whereas he mostly avoids these errors.
This comment is an example of (b). Approved Posture was making the obvious point that it's not clear how this war currently serves Israel's interests. You reply with an irrelevant, moralizing point about who bears responsibility for the beginning of the war.
For (a), I refer to your responses to Critic of the Cathedral elsewhere.
"The only thing Israel can do is 1) write off the hostages and withdraw"
They don't even have to write them off. They can just exchange the hostages for a permanent ceasefire.
>The Religious Zionists in the government are not per se running military strategy, but they are able to do two things. The first is to block any alternative military strategy in Gaza by threatening to bolt the coalition. The second is to push for ‘more’ or ‘stronger’ military action. In combination, this allows them to effectively drive policy by default, and the simplest explanation for their repeated statements that they are in the process of emptying out Gaza is that they believe they are successfully doing so.
The third thing they can do is prevent the government from letting them run wild in the West Bank or enforce the law against Dati Leumi people acting out for nationalist reasons. Dati Leumi cossacks can launch pogroms in West Bank villages without the army arresting a single perpetrator. Within Israel, Dati Leumi protestors can break into army bases to protect soldiers accused of rape, and can block aid trucks from crossing into Gaza, also all without a single arrest.
The fourth thing they can do is articulate government policy as clearing out Gaza for Jewish Settlement because Bibi has surrendered any ability to tell the world that Israel's policy is otherwise. In a normal functioning government, if a minister of the government, stated that the goal of the current operation was to ethnically cleanse Gaza and replace its residents with Jews, you would expect the Prime Minister to issue a forceful rejection of that policy and clearly articulate a contrary policy. You would also expect a censure of that minister, and some kind of threat to remove him from his post. (Imagine if Eliyahu had accused Israel of committing war crimes, chas v'chalilah.) Instead, it passes without comment. Ayyy, you might say that Eliyahu holds a BS cabinet post, a paper ministry, but the Prime Minister has long ignored similar comments of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Security. Not to mention he tolerates ministers of his own party, make equally bizarre pronouncements, e.g. that Israel should assassinate the Syrian head of state, or crow on Twitter about blowing up the Syrian Ministry of Defense on live Syrian TV. It's just a complete hefker velt, so long as nobody crosses the line of threatening Bibi's job or freedom.
Chapter 3: since 1967 the purpose of the “IDF" has been to facilitate Israeli Jewish land grabs and to “protect Jews wherever they are”, no matter what those Jews have done, which certainly includes settlers rampaging through other countries--including Palestine, yes--and, we outside are becoming aware, probably would be extended to other places without contiguous borders at the drop of a Jewish letter to the editor. https://web.archive.org/web/20201030105332/https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/resources/docs/INSS%20memo159.pdf
We are sick of your genocidal shit. Govern yourselves according to international law, which does not mean doing whatever you can sweep under the rug or blame on someone else.
Fuck Palestine and fuck your self righteous post modern liberal hippocrisy. You couldn't point to Palestine on the map if your life depended on it. There was never an independent sovereign political entity known as Palestine under Arab rule in history. Even if there were, that is irrelevant. The land of Israel belongs to the Jews and I do not give a fuck what you think about that. Go along, piss off now, the adults are talking now.
There needs to be a coup within the IDF. The Dati Leumi and Charedi soldiers should refuse all orders and mutinize their commanders. No more pointless suicide missions. No more spineless leftists calling the shots.
Okay, but what exacly should Jewish heroes plan to do with their spines?
What would the hypothetical new generals do here? Bomb the Rafah crossing and expel the population of Gaza into Egypt? Do you have a contingency plan for what do if Egypt tries to punt them back?
What's sad is that all of this has been obvious for a very long time.
In some sense, the modern state of Israel died on December 29th, 2022. To me, the appointment of David Zini truly marked the first official day of the new Israel, with the interval between the 37th Knesset and that moment serving as a brief transition period before the abject awfulness to come. There won't be pager explosions or sneaky drone attacks launched from Iran in David Zini's Israel.
It makes me profoundly sad how this has been enabled by so many Jews—for the hilariously dumb reason that people seem unable to wrap their heads around the simple reality that:
- The world can be filled with hypocritical people, including many anti-Semites, who hate Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with its conduct, treat Israel differently than all other states, the reality of how awful Hamas is (and dysfunction in Palestinian society), make claims which are factually wrong (or unfair), etc.
AND
- Israel can still be doing moronic things that are indefensible (from a self-interest standpoint).
It's truly sad that individuals like Russ Roberts cannot process both realities at the same time. In fairness, many Jews have stopped talking about Israel because they realize how insane the country has gotten, so the ones who still engage in dumb hasbara are the ones without the faculties for greater comprehension.
As long as the majority of Jewish Israelis belong to one of these three groups:
1. Haredim who only care about supporting ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel;
2. Religious Zionists who only care about establishing a Jewish supremacist state in the entire land of Israel; and
3. XXXX (I don't have a good name for this group, but you know exactly who I am referring to) who will sacrifice any vision of Israel simply to remain "in power" and indulge their emotional impulses;
Israel will not be able to escape this mess or secure a less moronic future. Sadly, given current demographics, this seems unlikely to change within the prevailing paradigm of our world and time.
Don't acquit the spineless uninspired timid leadership of the center-left (which must be a reflection of their voters). They are all equally culpable.
You forgot the AND Israel can still be doing morally detestable things. And you forgot the group YYYY that engage in dumb midrash in defense of Judaism, an ancient genocidal slaver cult, rather than just renouncing it and leaving. I don't think they lack the faculties for comprehension, I just think they lack the will to use them in the context of the cult they are pathologically devoted to.
Just curious, since you live in Israel and hold an Israeli passport and feel the need to comment on the IDF in this manner: what unit of the IDF did you serve in? Also, let's say for a moment that every single point you listed in this article about the faults of the IDF is correct--how does any of that end the war? What would be your idea to end the war?
I was not asked to do army service when I immigrated. I raised the issue once, and they said because of my age and having a child it wasn't relevant. I mildly regret this because I think it would have been better for my spoken Hebrew and acclimatization than Ulpan.
I'm guessing he did aliya later in life and so did not serve. But regardless, it's gross to imply that criticism of the IDF is off limits.
I have never suggested any such thing. I criticize the IDF all the time and I’ve never come close to serving in any military in any capacity. But I do believe that if Mr NonZionism is going to take it upon himself to drag the IDF in this manner, he should provide some suggestions on how the war should end.
Simple: you have 24 hours to bring the hostages to us. If you do not comply we will atom bomb Gaza. Just to show we are not bluffing we will be executing our prisoners one by one live on TV. If you continue to be stubborn after 24 hours we will flatten the middle east at random.
Sure that'll calm things down
Who said anything about calm?
...Okay, I guess that answers my questions.
What makes her comment such a clear case of implying that? Is “in this manner” supposed to be ignored? Are we that dumb?
Mr. Nonzionism uses this tone for everything.
Oh, you meant him, I thought you meant Jill.
מזל טוב
I agree with some of your points to varying degrees. But going to from that to calling Israel a 'borderline failed state' is roughly akin to pointing out that someone is overweight, has high blood pressure, and needs to exercise more and then declaring them to be deathly ill.
“In as much as collective responsibility can ever make sense as a moral doctrine, they have merited what has happened to them.”
What is wrong with you??
The last election in Gaza was 19 years ago. Hamas quickly moved to murder its opponents and threaten all who would dissent, and LESS THAN 10% of the current population of Gaza ever voted for Hamas. The other >90% have zero responsibility for bringing that criminal gang to power, and even the <10% may quickly have regretted their vote and don’t necessarily support Hamas now.
If you assume the bulk of the population supports Hamas because Hamas had the capacity to raise a crowd that filled streets, you suck at math. If you believe “opinion polls” claiming that most Gazans support Hamas, I can tell you as a professional opinion pollster that they are either bad polls or are being misinterpreted. The scale of the destruction and human suffering in Gaza is far far far far FAR disproportionate to anything Gazans have done to Israel, and is being exacted on people almost all of whom are innocent. Shame on you!
Why are the polls bad/being misinterpreted?
The polls were bad because the people being polled could not be confident of the anonymity of their responses, and they were misinterpreted because opposition to Israel and support of fighting back against the occupying power were not distinguished from support for Hamas itself.
If Palestinians only express support in polls for their leadership out of fear, why is Hamas always more popular in polls of Palestinians in the West Bank than the PA or Fatah, if Hamas is suppressed by the PA, there?
And why are Fatah and the PA more popular in Gaza than in the West Bank, if they rule the latter, but are banned in the former?
(See e.g. polling results here: https://pcpsr.org/en/node/997.)
And why would polls show that Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other non-Hamas terror groups (who would often attack Israel while Hamas had ceasefires with Israel, thus being perceived as more committed to terrorism than Hamas) command higher popularity than Hamas?
And why would Al Qassam Brigades (the military branch of Hamas which carries out terror attacks) command higher popularity than "Hamas," when it's the latter which rules, not the former?
(See e.g. polling here: https://web.archive.org/web/20231116174404/https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023.pdf and here: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah).
Many years of polling of Palestinians paints a rather clear picture, in which Palestinians broadly support the destruction of Israel, but like many people all over the world, often resent the day to day experience of governance. Thus, Islamic Jihad, which is viewed as the most committed to killing the Jews, and isn't responsible for day to day gripes that Palestinians have with governance, polls the highest everywhere, while Palestinians in the West Bank rank Hamas more highly than Palestinians in Gaza, since Hamas is responsible for day to day affairs for the latter, not the former, while throughout, when we break up Hamas into the terror component (AQB) and the governance component, the former is wildly popular, while it's the latter that loses some support.
Maybe you could comment a little on the poll here? I'm not sure who runs AWRAD precisely, but I remember a twitter thread citing survey data in Arabic that indicated 77% of palestinians wanted the "one people solution", which made my eyes bug out a little.
https://www.awrad.org/en/article/10719/Wartime-Poll-Results-of-an-Opinion-Poll-Among-Palestinians-in-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza-Strip
I haven't looked into the polling orgs.
That link references the poll whose archived version is found in the second link in my comment. It doesn't contain a 77% figure or a question that seems equivalent to the one you're referencing.
If you're curious about polls of Palestinians on support for positions, rather than support for groups, which I focused on in my previous comment, that can be found in the first link in my comment, from which a number of conclusions can be gleaned.
One of them is that Palestinians broadly support terror against Israel and another is that contrary to the notion that increased Israeli oppression leads to increased support for terror among Palestinians, the opposite is often the case.
Regarding the first point, we see for example, that in December 2023, months after Israel began its crushing aerial and ground campaigns against Gaza, in response to the question of whether it was the right decision to launch the October 7 attack, Palestinians response of correct / incorrect was 72% / 22%.
Regarding the second point, we can look at the difference in poll results of Gazans and WB Palestinians. WB Palestinians have always had a higher standard of living than Gazans, and now that Gaza is a war zone, the difference is obviously much larger.
We might expect that the harsher conditions in Gaza would lead to less support for terror there, but the polls indicate that that isn't always the case, and often it's the opposite. In the December poll about support for the October 7 attack, for example, among WB Palestinians, the correct / incorrect response was 82% / 12%, while among Gazans, it was "only" 57% / 37%.
This seems explainable by WB Palestinians being more insulated from the consequences of the attack.
Similarly, as the war dragged on, and the destruction of Gaza escalated Palestinian assessment of the decision to launch the attack dropped, such that in the most recent poll from May 2025, the correct / incorrect response was "only" 50% / 40%.
On the question of whether a Palestinian state should be established alongside Israel, known as a two-state solution, 40% of Palestinians expressed support compared to 32% in September 2023.
46% support a return to confrontations and armed intifada vs. 51% supporting that 7 months ago.
As to the question of the best means of achieving the goals of ending Israeli occupation and building an independent state: Negotiation / Peaceful popular resistance / Armed struggle, "armed struggle" has always been the most popular response.
In September 2023, the response was: 20% / 24% / 53%, while in May 2025, it was 33% / 20% / 41%.
Is there something else, in particular, you'd like me to comment on in regard to these polls?
> "It doesn't contain a 77% figure or a question that seems equivalent to the one you're referencing"
I'm pretty sure it's on Page 23 of the Tables of Results? At least according to google translate, 77% of west-bankers responded to "Do you support the one-state or two-state solution in its following forms?" with "A Palestinian state from the river to the sea". (The percentages were a little different in Gaza, but this was in contrast to one-state or two-state solutions for two peoples.)
I this think was polled in Nov 2023, though admittedly this seems a little at odds with what you're quoting about support in Sep 23.
> "On the question of whether a Palestinian state should be established alongside Israel, known as a two-state solution, 40% of Palestinians expressed support compared to 32% in September 2023."
> "Is there something else, in particular, you'd like me to comment on in regard to these polls?"
Well, I was kinda wondering if AWRAD (or anyone else) is a particularly trustworthy source, who funds these polling orgs, etc.? I have leftist relations that I occasionally try to deprogram on these topics, so if these orgs are funded by something resembling an impartial third party it might help to make the source more credible?
End of comment got cut off:
The scale of the destruction and human suffering in Gaza is far far far far FAR disproportionate to anything Gazans have done to Israel, and is being exacted on people almost all of whom are innocent. Shame on you!
"Presently, though, Israel is doing whatever it is doing for no purpose that can be articulated."
This is a very dumb thing to say. There's a very straightforward reason to keep fighting Hamas as long as they're still dug in, not to mention still holding Israeli hostages: to prevent them from regrouping and planning another October 7th. You don't need to *agree* with it, but pretending it's some Ben Gvir-ist fever dream is idiotic.
Here's Yossi Yehoshua. (He's from that fringe settler-extremist internet site known as YNET.)
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/yokra14437333
כך או אחרת, אם היעד הוא אכן "השמדת חמאס", אזי הציבור צריך לדעת את מה שאומרים קצינים בכירים: זאת מטרה שההשגה שלה תימשך שנים, וכל מי שטוען אחרת לא מבין על מה הוא מדבר. לעזה יש זמן. למעשה, זה כל מה שנשאר לה.
In general, you seem to be incapable of comprehending that there are actually well informed mainstream military correspondents who don't agree with your basic thesis: I.e. that since some legitimately crazy people want to keep fighting the war in Gaza, it therefore follows that *only* crazy people think that.
Sure, an extended counter-insurgency campaign to destroy Hamas to avert some kind of attack 15 or so years into the future has a rationale but, a I already said:
a) the IDF does not have the capabilities for this, and demonstrates no desire to develop these capabilities
b) a successful counter-insurgency must have a political end goal, and the government refuses to articulate one (while allowing government ministers to assert that the goal is in fact something completely unrelated)
c) government ministers continually obstruct or veto any constructive strategy towards a successful counter insurgency.
I think a fair amount of what might be going on is the sunk cost fallacy. It is impossible to eradicate Hamas and even if you eradicated Hamas, that does not remove from Gaza anyone who has a motive to commit violence against Israel on an October 7 scale (in fact you might have increased it) under a different name. But we've sunk so much into this war (both in terms of Israeli and Palestinian casualties) on the theory that the only reason we're doing this is eradicating Hamas that if you stop before eradicating Hamas that means all those people died for nothing. So the killing continues.
agree
That's why they need to relocate the Palestinians to Jordan. It's the only humane solution. Like they did with the Germans after WW2. The cycle of violence must end and clearly these are two groups of people that cannot live next to each other.
There is the slight problem that Jordan is still nextdoor to Israel, although maybe not parked as close to major population centres. Also, how would you propose to persuade King Abdullah to take them without triggering a war?
That's possible, but it's also possible there's no non-suicidal alternative to persisting. At the end of the day, it's not a casino. You can walk away from the table, but wherever you go, the table is still there.
We could argue about this - I don't even think it was "suicidal" before October 7 to have Hamas in charge of Gaza - it was just a very big screwup to have Hamas in charge of Gaza and no serious defense around the strip. Presumably it's not a mistake they will make again.
But I don't think any of the relevant decision makers actually think it's suicidal to walk away. The IDF clearly wants out and Bibi has floated ceasefires and an end to the war at various times.
No quarrel with your first paragraph. But the second ignores the impossibility of walking away without the return of Israel's hostages, not to mention the inevitability of the continuation of the international political war against Israel as it continues to blockade Gaza, only more aggressively this time.
There might be some other kind of "walking away" that would overcome these obstacles, but I haven't seen it described here.
Oh by "walk away" I assume you meant a ceasefire that sees the return of the hostages as a condition for ending the war.
As to whether there is a future Gaza embargo and how severe it should be, that's an area where the continuing international pressure is not going to get better for Israel the longer the war goes on.
🇮🇱 has no feasible plan for who runs Gaza after they withdraw.
This is true no matter how many casualties there are on a day-to-day basis
The government wants to relocate them. They won't outright say it, but that's their long term plan.
2 points 1) you're right to mention sde temain truly a test of policy towards the 'bad apples' and the result was frankly terrifying and disgusting. 2) maybe I'm overly panglossian but a new election giving a Bennett style govt could surely sort out a lot of this?
The main reason for the state of the discipline in the Israeli army is that its soldiers see they are being led by a PM who is willing to degrade Israel's strength both inwards and outwards in the service of the supreme purpose of staying in power. A PM that is comfortable manning his government with lunatics (Ben Gvir et al.), parasites (the ultra-orthodox) and incompetents (all the others - and this is not an exaggeration). This, for a war-time government that must meet impossible challenges, and whose decisions affect the soldier's lives in the most direct way possible. Under such circumstances, of course many of the normies will bow out and leave the army to the extremist elements.
The most despicable part of the government are the ultra-orthodox, who should know better because they are not stupid. But in characteristic Chareidi way, they don't care that they are weakening the edifice that sustains and protects them. Their fatalism and belief that they represent the only authentic Judaism makes them, in their way, the part of Israeli society most similar to the Hamas jihadists.
Can someone tell me how this happened? Is religious Zionism a true reflection of Judaism, or more like ISIS?
It's a diverse movement, or it least it was. But it has degenerated into a belief that the prime religious imperative is building more homes in Yehuda and Shomron and this overrides everything else. I plan to write about it at more length.
Please!
What would be wrong with the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza and resettlement. I get the downsides, but is not “one really bad day” ultimately something people will get over faster than “a new tragedy every single day forever”.
1. You can't ethnically cleanse the Strip in one day, for starters.
2. Also, that would take far more boots on the ground than are currently in Gaza, along with more Israeli casualties.
3. Egypt is the only place you can send them to, and they have no interest in taking the people in Gaza.
You could easily exterminate the entire population in a day. I don't know about ethics.
Israel could issue an ultimatum to Egypt saying that if they don't take them in by such a such a date they will kill every single person in Gaza. If Egypt takes them, great. If they don't, kill them.
I feel like I should chime in just to register for the record that genocide is bad because murder is bad and genocide is a very big murder.
What if they are garbage genetic and cultural trash that can't build a civilization and would genocide you if they could and commit the maximum amount of genocide they are pathetically capable of and every opportunity they are given.
You mean, what if they share the same mindset as you? Yeah, I still wouldn't condone murdering your kids.
And then Israel loses all international support, and potentially risks getting South African like sanctions. That's why they are conducting the war like they are. Even though horrific images come out of Gaza, they can still blame Hamas directly or indirectly.
Sure, that's the argument.
But ironically the more people call it a genocide (when it isn't) the less incentive Israel has to not just do an actual genocide and get it over with once and for all.
Nuking Gaza would be a genocide by any reasonable definition. I don't find the term useful, but to nuke the strip would remove all doubt.
The fundamental problem with your worldview is ignoring the geopolitical implications. Israel needs NATO support in the short and long term, and if that were to go away Israel would be in a bad position. And that's not to mention that Israel has at all times a sword of Damocles hanging over it: its most productive citizens have 2 or more passports. They can jump ship at any time.
Yes, there are downsides to the strategy. There are also downsides to the status quo. It may be that the downsides to the strategy outweighs the downsides to the status quo.
My point is simple.
1) What's going on isn't actually genocide.
2) The more people call it genocide and treat Israel like its genocide, the less incentive Israel has to not engage in actual genocide.
If your going to pay the price of genocide either way, you might as well gain the benefits of genocide (never dealing with this fucking trash ever again).
It's possible that if Israel did a genocide it would become a pariah. But it might become a pariah anyway. And there have been a lot of genocides in history and after a certain amount of time people just shrug and move on.
It's not like anyone actually likes the Palestians. Even their allies treat them like the plague and won't let them in even as they claim they are being genocided.
Oh you're discussing actually killing them all. I cannot imagine a way that would happen that wouldnt end in the destruction of the Israeli state in less than a generation and in a manner where most of the Jewish population has no one willing to take them.
You are correct it would probably be less evil than the current strategy but the only way to do it (forcing them over the Egyptian border and overwhelm the Egyptian border guards) would probably destroy relations with Egypt and possibly end the '78 treaty and even further alienate western public opinion.
Thank you. Someone who gets it. I appreciate that, honestly.