Deeper understanding of why Israel was created

[NameChangedUnderstandingGained]

I have recently visited Poland. Did a lot of reading. Visited a lot of historic sites and museums.

Oh My Gosh - I now REALLY understand why the British Mandate in Palestine created Israel. Even after the war ended Jews were still ostracised, blamed, killed, turned out of lands, unwelcome in many, many nations in Europe. The number of Jews were decimated, many survivors had to use assumed fake identification to survive, some fled to America, to Australia and Europe still wasn't safe or friendly for them hence Israel. One little bit of land where Jewish people originated, where the religion was first founded thousands of years before. A 2 state solution would have been good if both agreed and both wanted to live in peace and prosper. Israel never felt safe so built up a massive defence, built up a country and industry and wanted to prosper.

There is much harm that has been done to many peoples in history. However, the holocaust was unique. I have visited places where Jews no longer exist, they have all gone, millions died, the liquidation of Jews throughout lands, nothing Israel has done in a war is the same as this. The gas chambers, the extermination camps, the work until to drop then we kill you camps. It really is on another scale.

I am now totally pro keeping a land for Jewish people. I don't agree with settler violence but I do agree and understand why Israel needs to defend itself from terrorists who wish to wipe Jewish people from the earth just like the Nazi did.

But that was not her argument. Her issue was her tax money supporting Israel when a. None of her taxes are sent to Israel and b. British arms are sold in much, much bigger quantities to Saudi Arabia. The question why does she only are about the 'crimes' of Israel, a democratic nation responding to a heinous genocidal attack, in a conflict where Hamas shares responsibility for the deaths of it civilians because of its proactive strategy of, at best, failing to protect them But not at all, apparently about the crimes of Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian country that has got involved in another country's civil war and been responsible for the deaths of far more people. That it was over a longer period is not the gotcha you think it is.

The answer to that question is it's about Israel. Sums it up really. We all know that.other conflicts which involve money or trade ir weapons from the UK are tumbleweed. We all KNOW that.

Yes
@Squeezingwildoranges said “The difference is I'm not being forced to pay for those other atrocities whereas my tax money is actively funding the repression of Palestinians “

You cannot compare the Palestinian situation to other civil wars. You can certainly compare Yemen and Sudan or even Syria to each other. The only really comparable event to Palestine would be the Rohingya genocide which the Myanmar Military Junta are being prosecuted for in the ICJ at the moment.

But there were weekly marches for Palestine straight after October 7th - well before the current horrific situation.

There’s a kernel of truth in this, but it’s overstated.

The Rohingya crisis is certainly a very relevant comparison to Gaza, particularly because both involve allegations of genocide, mass displacement and persecution, and both are the subject of cases under the Genocide Convention at the ICJ.

But it’s not true that Palestine cannot be compared with civil wars such as Syria, Sudan or Yemen. You can compare conflicts on particular issues — displacement, attacks on civilians, starvation, foreign intervention, alleged war crimes, etc. That doesn’t mean the conflicts are identical or that Gaza should simply be characterised as a “civil war”.

Also, the ICJ doesn’t “prosecute” Myanmar’s military junta. The case is The Gambia v Myanmar, concerning Myanmar’s responsibility as a state under the Genocide Convention. The ICJ has not yet made a final ruling that Myanmar committed genocide.

So: Rohingya is a particularly relevant comparison, but it isn’t the only legitimate comparison, and the ICJ point is legally inaccurate.

You can't compare death tolls from the Gaza war with other wars for obvious reasons -

1. The elected government of Gaza deliberately started a war to use civilians as human sacrifices for a propaganda war against Israel. Their goal was to demonise Israel on the world stage knowing full well they could never defeat Israel militarily.
2. The elected government of Gaza deliberately left their civilians with no civil defence - not even one bomb shelter, instead building tunnels to protect their fighters and ONLY for their fighters.
3. The elected government of Gaza deliberately prevented civilians from evacuating from buildings where Israel had warned civilians to evacuate.
4. The elected government of Gaza deliberately FIRED mortars/rockets from civilian infrastructure including from tents within refugee camps so Israel had to target civilian areas.
5. The elected government of Gaza deliberately used civilian infrastructure as military infrastructure.
6. The elected government of Gaza refused to surrender while accusing Israel of genocide.
7. The elected government of Gaza refused to release Israeli hostages while accusing Israel of committing genocide.
8. The elected government of Gaza stole aid to sell it at inflated prices so they could continue to pay their fighters to keep the war, and their IRGC backed propaganda campaign, going..
9. Most importantly - the international community did not support civilians in a high density urban warzone, with a 50% demographic of children under the age of 18, being given safe passage out of Gaza as refugees. Civilians were trapped in Gaza while the border of a non-hostile neighbouring country was literally a few miles away.

I'm sure I've missed a few things out but please list comparisons with any of the wars you've mentioned.

All these points are what make the Gaza war unique, along with unprecedented Western interest because of the above imo.

The Gazans were the necessary sacrifices in Hamas' wider plan.

I can't think of a parallel in history where the deaths of one's own civilians were part of the plan from the very start.

The Rohingyas were able to flee as refugees.

So Israel were just following the terrorists plan? We know that they have a long history of arming terrorist groups and of course the currently actively support Jewish 'terrorists' as Ed Miliband called them earlier today but you are saying that Israel were following the plans of Hamas too? Is that why Netanyahu failed to brief his security services of the explicit warning he had received from Qatar and refused the unconditional offer of the release of civillian hostages on the very first day, because it didn't follow the plans to 'sacrifice Gazans'? Israel as a proxy of Hamas all sounds like quite the conspiracy theory but it's probably not the craziest one I've heard 🫣

What ‘elected’ government of Gaza?!

I think the last elections were held in 2006. The average age of a Gazan is 19. And when, during the ceasefire, Gazans came out to protest against Hamas, Hamas shor them dead. I think this ‘elected’ rubbish is to try to excuse killing civilians.

The war was unique in another less flattering way to Israel. It wasn’t a war between armies. It was a country armed to the teeth vs a well organised terror group, basically armed with hand guns (plus a few short range ‘dumb’ missiles’). And what a mess they have made of it.

This is exactly what Hamas wanted and, without Trump, they may well have secured some kind of victory based on international opprobrium.

Israel is doing similar to what America is doing in Iran, fighting a war with no clear objectives. And, if you disagree, at what point can Israel stop fighting and declare victory. And, like the U.S, the Israeli government is slowly losing support, both abroad and at home.

How shameful for Israel to be (absolutely correctly) boycotted by the UK, with Milliband being Jewish (I am too btw). Israel cannot behave like a rogue state and then expect the diaspora to support them unquestioningly. That is a recipe for antisemitism.

The diaspora has a duty to call out Israel when she is behaving illegally-and she is. It is no different from Muslims not calling out 9/11 if we don’t.

And, I do agree that Hamas are a barbarous excuse for a government (even a dictatorship), but Israel, backed by the U.S, could have achieved far better with far less loss of life. As people said up above, Hamas wanted mass civilian casualties. Israel didn’t have to oblige by using starvation and thirst as a weapon (which didn’t touch Hamas anyway, they came out far in brand new uniform in the ceasefire), use 2 ton bombs on civilian infrastructure (the U.S never use more than 500lbs) or use the war as an excuse to settle new territory.

I am not saying doing it better would have been easy for Netanyahu. But without the braying of the likes of Ben G’vir and Smotrich, he could have kept a cooler head and the world’s support.

Important to remember that while Ed Miliband has introduced an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories, he is against boycotts of Israel.

He said: “The sanctions will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and valued trade with green line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel.

“For this reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the boycott, divestment, sanctions, or BDS, campaign.”

Mr Miliband said his trade bans would be in place within the next six to nine months. Effectively that means after the elections in Israel.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/09/08/andy-burnham-west-bank-sanctions-israel-miliband-us-latest/

All of this. Its irrelevant that Israel could have prosecuted the war differently. Yet any urban warfare expert knows it is an incredibly difficult talk to fight a war in these conditions yet people with no military experience blithely act like they would have made a better job of it. However, to have a government that does not see civilian casualties as collateral damage but an intrinsic strategic aim is beyond belief. Yet here we are, as usual, talking about Israel.

I honestly don't get this argument. It's like arguing that a group of parents deliberately taking their children to swim in a river full of crocodiles wouldn't be responsible if they were attacked. The children didn't choose the river, didn't understand the danger, and certainly wouldn't be responsible if they were attacked. But the parents knowingly chose to put them there.

Of course CHILDREN are not responsible for voting in a terrorist organisation as their Government. The majority of the adults in Gaza are though as the other 44% voted in Fatah with voter turnout at 76%.

Fatah in 2006 did not advocate for peace with Israel. It still lies about stopping 'pay for slay'!

“We didn’t stop” Pay-for-Slay – Fatah spokesman | PMW Analysis

Strange that you have an opinion on Hamas capability but know (embarrassingly IMO) little about it.

'It was a country armed to the teeth vs a well organised terror group, basically armed with hand guns (plus a few short range ‘dumb’ missiles’). And what a mess they have made of it.'

Hamas military strength on 7 October 2023 (estimated):

• 25,000–40,000 fighters, including several thousand elite Nukhba fighters.
• Thousands of rockets, with estimates of roughly 12,000–30,000 in total.
• RPGs and anti-tank missiles, including Iranian/Russian-designed systems such as Kornet, plus locally manufactured weapons.
• Mortars, machine guns, assault rifles, grenades and explosives/IEDs.
• Armed drones and explosive commercial quadcopters.
• Paragliders used to infiltrate Israel during the October 7 attack.
• Naval commando units with boats and underwater capabilities.
• A large underground tunnel network used for weapons storage, movement and command.

To put it in perspective, Hamas had double the amount of 'fighters' compared to current British Army combat roles for a population 31 times smaller, and recruited more, including child soldiers, as the war started and progressed.

Considering the IDF is armed to the teeth, how come Hamas managed to kill almost 500 soldiers in Gaza, and how many more do you think they would have killed if Israel hadn't used air power extensively to destroy Hamas infrastructure and support/protect its ground troops?

Hamas knew before Oct 7th they would do this, of course.

@OpenScroller, so reading your posts, correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that other countries such as Egypt and Jordan should allow all the Palestinians to cross the border into their countries so they can live as refugees like the Rohingya do in Bangladesh.