Anti Israel Rhetoric is rife. Why?

[cindyhove]

As of April 5, 2025, numerous armed conflicts are ongoing worldwide, varying in scale and intensity. According to the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, over 110 armed conflicts are currently being monitored, encompassing both international and non-international engagements.
why is israel the only one to be demonised out of the current 110 conflicts?
The answer is blindingly obvious

So do I, and I agree with you. I don't see your post as necessarily antisemitic, it's legitimate criticism of Israel.

If you were to say that the Israeli government is just as bad as Hamas I'd say different.

But I don’t hate Israel @dairydebris. I’m also unable to boil down the entire conflict to simplicities like you can because there is no ‘good’ side here currently.

we could cite atrocity vs atrocity forever, where does the tit for tat end? Is the complete annihilation of an enemy worth the stain it leaves on a nations psyche and reputation? I just see people warped by revenge and bitterness and using that as a defence against whatever actions they decide to take under the misguided belief this will ‘end’ the conflict. It won’t. You will have to continue to support atrocities as will your children and grandchildren, and to continue to hide your actions from the world for generations too. is that what you want?

why should you support lack of transparency? Let people see for themselves and you might find an increase in support. You might not but that’s the risk of transparency.

You do realise dishonestreporting is a pro-Israel organization headquartered in Skokie, Illinois, with its editorial staff based in Jerusalem, Israel?

Could say the same for Palestinians. They think every act of terror is justified. So where does it end? What are they achieving for themselves? They've turned down every offer of statehood and turned to violence instead

And? They're sharing another news outlet's headline. You don't like the messenger fine. Does that mean you're going to dismiss the source aswell? What do you have against SKY News?

It seems like you do hate Israel when you repeatly state it's government is just as bad as Hamas when it absolutely clearly, logically and factually isn't.

It seems I can't get you to agree with me on that so fair enough. We're lucky to be able to have these opinions and speak them freely.

I absolutely 100 % agree with your second paragraph. Especially the bit about so many people being warped by hatred and bitterness and the ongoing tragedy of that.

I wish Hamas would return the hostages, lay down arms and fuck off forever. I hope Israel will vote in more moderate voices next year, pull the settlers out of the West Bank and maybe then both sides can start healing.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Yes you could.

the only difference is strength.

So they need to agree peace instead of endless deliberate victimhood. Israel isn't going anywhere

That's, unsurprisingly, a very edited and biased view of admittedly complex events. Presumably you think Ukraine should cede territory and governance to Russia?

Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary in 1949 that Abba Eban, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., “sees no need to run after peace. The armistice is sufficient for us; if we run after peace, the Arabs will demand a price of us: borders or refugees or both. Let us wait a few years.” That year Ben-Gurion also told his cabinet, as paraphrased by British–Israeli historian Avi Shlaim: “With the passage of time, the world would get used to Israel’s existing borders, and forget about U.N. borders and the U.N. idea of an independent Palestinian state.”

The U.S. pushed Israel to participate in a peace conference in Switzerland during the middle of 1949. The Arab position was that Israel’s borders should be not the armistice lines giving it 78 percent of Palestine, but the partition plan’s borders granting it 56 percent. The Arab participants also demanded that refugees from areas designated for an Arab state be able to return to their homes. Israel rejected both concepts

Following the 1967 war, the international consensus gradually came to be that peace would require the creation of a Palestinian state. At the same time, the PLO accepted internally that the overall war was over, and they had lost: They were therefore willing to make peace in return for a state on the 22 percent of Palestine constituting Gaza and the West Bank. A 1976 draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council called for this and stated that Israel should “withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967.” The PLO supported the resolution. Every country on the Security Council except the U.S. — including the U.K., France, Italy, Japan, and Sweden — voted for it. But Israel had no interest in it, and the U.S. vetoed it. Instead of encouraging further moderation from the PLO, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982

1993 accords - Yitzhak Rabin, “We do not accept the Palestinian goal of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan. We believe there is a separate Palestinian entity short of a state.”

2001- Clinton's proposed 2 state solution was really close to being agreed but Barak terminated the discussions on January 27, a few weeks before Israeli elections. Then lost the election.

Arab peace initiative 2002 - another missed opportunity as Omert claimed, If I had remained prime minister for another four to six months, I believe it would have been possible to reach an agreement. The gaps were small.” But he was found guilty and we got Netanyahu.

April 2024- Hamas willing to agree to a truce of five years or more with Israel and that it would lay down its weapons and convert into a political party if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders

January 2025 - Hamas withdraws its offer to disarm and instead proposed to release all captives remaining in the Gaza Strip in “one go” in exchange for a lasting truce and a complete Israeli army withdrawal from the besieged enclave.

There is no chance under Netanyahu of Israel agreeing to a free and independent Palestinian state.

Source?

'2001- Clinton's proposed 2 state solution was really close to being agreed but Barak terminated the discussions on January 27, a few weeks before Israeli elections. Then lost the election'

This in particular is incorrect. Clinton was very vocal afterwards about how Arafat wrecked the talks

The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonial Conquest & Resistance, 1917–2017, Rashid Khalali

The Crisis of Zionism, Peter Beinhart

https://www.972mag.com/yitzhak-rabin-never-supported-palestinian-statehood/

https://theintercept.com/2023/11/28/israel-palestine-history-peace/

The Israeli Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know, Dov Waxman

Where did you get your timeline from?

History

😂

I think the Israeli government is just as bad as Hamas. Their death count has a extremely long list.

I have followed this guy for ages. He very often seems a lone voice. Why don't those who claim to be Pro-Palestinian listen to this Palestinian?

Rubbish! Hamas are a terrorist organisation. The Israel government is not a terrorist organisation and are not “as bad”.

They are in my opinion, terrorists in suits.

With terrorist police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vje365rno

Thankfully U.K. law treats proscribed terrorists under its terms.

Only because we split hairs over definitions.

aim is to annihilate an entire group of people.
people are captured and kept in inhumane conditions with allegations of abuse and torture.
has a long history of attacks from and against opposing group.
have had actions condemned internationally.

who am I talking about? Hamas or Israel?

Oh please. If Israel wanted to get rid of Palestinians they could have done so, but they haven't. In fact the population in Gaza has grown over the past 18 months. You yourself said upthread they have superior strength

Meanwhile, Hamas have a charter documenting their commitment to wiping out 'the Zionist state'

Oh dear. He lied. Both Arafat and Israel had reservations about the agreement, Clinton claimed Israel's reserve rations all fell inside the parameters but Arafat's didn't. Now, we know this isn't true,

“the permanent territorial arrangements would have to include annexation that exceeds the numerical territorial scope indicated by the President”; “The President’s ideas regarding the Old City and Har Habayit [in East Jerusalem] are different from Israel’s position”; “In the field of security, the Presidential ideas differ from the Israeli ones with regard to the Palestinian police and security force, the mandate of the international force and the monitoring of the non-militarization of Palestine [etc.].” It also calls on Clinton to remove any ambiguities in his parameters per the “Right of Return of the refugees”—that is, “any entry of refugees to Israel shall be a matter of sole sovereign Israeli discretion.”

If you want to look at the Israeli government response to the framework agreement on permanent status, search for it online.

Well you’re entitled to your opinion.