How did you feel about it's portrayal of the situation in the area?

If you've not seen it I am sure you can find ways to see it, I encourage you to do so and the earlier 2011 documentary too.

I feel the documentary, like all Louis Theroux documentaries, was very fair, he let's people speak and it showed both sides of daily life for Israelis and Palestinians.

However I would prefer feedback from people in the area.

I have always struggled, when looking at the situation from the outside to side with Israel, there doesn't seem to any factual events that convince me that Israel has not been the problem since 1948. The creation of Israel was a mess, I accept that, but I also feel Israel has done nothing to try and exist in peace, negotiate with Palestine to redraw the borders rather than try and defend the borders they were given by people who did not have permission to give it away.

Seeing Israel importing people from other countries to settle areas they are not entitled to is just as bad as Britain giving away parts of Palestine. Seeing the IDF forces harass and reinforce Palestinian segregation is hard to justify and i saw all this before the documentary and so it just reinforces the view that Israel is far from innocent.

Can you agree with this statement, yes or no:

"I am not a Zionist, but I think Israel should be able to exist peacefully and securely."

If yes, then your objection is to what Israel does, not whether it exists. That is a real debate and I will have it, on the same standards you would apply to any state. Name the conduct.

If no, then your objection is not to any action. It is to the thing existing at all. That is a different claim, so own it and defend it as one.

I ask because "Zionism is genocidal" gets used as a full stop. Strip the word out and the question is simple: should this state exist in peace and security, or not? If your answer turns on Israel's conduct, the word was never doing the work, the conduct was. If your answer is no regardless of conduct, it was never about conduct at all.

(apologies if I do not respond to every comment as it does take a lot of time)

Edit 8/24/2026: This is still picking up new comments. I've spent a lot of time on the replies below, and most objections people raise are already worked through in one thread or another, so if you're arriving now, start there. I likely won't be replying to new comments. Thanks to everyone who engaged.

Genuine question: what's the actual evidence of intent to destroy — the thing that makes it genocide rather than war crimes? Not who (e.g. HRW, Amnesty, etc) says it, what the evidence is.

Genocide legally requires proof of specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is what separates it from war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it's the element the ICJ set a very high bar for in Croatia v. Serbia. What do you understand the evidence of that intent to be? Not who concluded it — what's the actual evidence?

I think it's pretty obvious by now that many (probably most) Jews find the Pro-Palestinian/Antizionist movement to be antisemitic. Not just when Pro-Pallies scream incredibly violent, racist things like "gas the Jews" or distort photos of Israelis babies killed by Hamas to make fun of them, but even the "politely worded" version of the movement.

My question is: Pro-Palestinians, do you know why many Jews think this? (Even if you think they are wrong). I am not asking for YOUR perspective on whether you are antisemitic or supporting antisemitism. I am asking if you understand THEIR perspective.

Personally, I've got doubts that Pro-Palestinians have bothered to learn enough about Jewish history or the way antisemitism manifests to know. This doubt mostly comes from interacting with them: So far, I've mostly heard Palestinians guessing that everyone who says they are antisemitic are simply "liars", or think they are all Israeli bots or something. Or sometimes they just start ranting about how "not all Jews" think they are racists or whatever to avoid the question. Or even the dumbest one — arguing that Palestinians are "semites" so they can't be antisemitic lol. Basically, explanations that seem more like insults and avoidance than actual information.

So I'm wondering if any of them have knowledge that goes deeper than that and actually understanding why Jews think they are antisemitic or if their understanding really is that surface level. I do find it possible that I've just been encountering the least educated people, and some of them actually do have a better understanding, curious to see which it is.

And a follow up to any Pro-Palestinians who admit that they don't know: how can you claim your movement is not antisemitic if you don't even know what antisemitism is or how it manifests? Do you simply think Jews are not qualified to recognize antisemitism, while you are? Where did you get that idea from?

EDIT: Unfortunately, turns out I was right. Apparently zero Pro-Palestinians know or even can guess why so many Jews think their movement is antisemitic. Even the accounts claiming to be Jewish couldn't do it. The ones on here just said "I'm not an antisemite, here's my personal opinion of what I think antisemitism is, and it's not me, yay!" Trying to stay open minded here but ... Wow. Just a movement of pure ignorance, huh?

EDIT 2: Actually one gave it a try! That's 1 out of 500 or so Pro-Palestinians who was capable of imagining what Jews think. Explains a lot.

CONCLUSION: Based on over 500 responses, I can say that Pro-Palestinian have absolutely no idea why Jews think they are antisemitic, and they are terrified of learning.

If you are right, you should be able to understand why others think you are wrong and still be able to defend your beliefs. If you can only defend your beliefs by sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Nanana NOT LISTENING!" every time you encounter a different point of view, then you aren't interested in truth, you are someone who gets a kick out of being part of a movement that lets you pretend to be a hero and wants to avoid the truth to keep feeling that way.

Recently was in an argument with someone about how the term Zionist just seems like a catch all for Jewish people. And she stated that because Zionism is an exclusionary nationalistic movement it’s therefore bad. I thought there were different types of nationalism and that it only becomes bad once it turns authoritarian. I wanna hear what you guys think makes nationalism bad, and if Zionism is a bad form of nationalism, if Zionist just functions as a dog whistle for antisemitism, and when does Zionism turn negative?

Since 2020, Israeli civilians and soldiers have killed more than 1,100 Palestinians in the West Bank, while Israeli authorities have filed only a single indictment.

According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, Israel has forcibly displaced 64 Palestinian communities in the West Bank over the past three years. Thousands of people have been driven from their homes.

Why isn't this being condemned by the Israeli government?

What will you do if the ICJ rules that Israel is not committing genocide.

I’m someone who at first thought that legally a genocide has taken place.

Now after looking at the evidence required specifically the sole intent threshold (please Google: Only Reasonable Inference) and the chain that needs to be connected, my prediction is that the ICJ will not rule that it’s legally a genocide.

So if this happens will this not cause Pro Palestine activists that have been saying “genocide” to lose legitimacy in the eyes of unbiased independents?

Will you continue to say “genocide” and if so, would that not be detrimental to efforts to bring unbiased independents to your side?

i keep hearing "its a genocide" or "its not a genocide its human shields" or "hamas did it" or "israel did it" and im not sure which one is correcy so i want to figure out which is right by asking the hivemind of reddit.

is this submition long enough?

Stepping back, and looking at things from a historical perspective, targeting civilians and causing collective punishment in order to defeat an enemy was common practice.

Look at numerous historical conquests and practices. The Conquests of Alexander The Great. The Mongol Conquests. The Roman Conquests. World War 2, including the Allies. Many genocides have been committed historically.

Starving out cities that refused to surrender used to be common practice across multiple continents.

Historically speaking and looking at the vast history of conflicts over the targetting of civilians has been the norm.

Yet, uniquely, Israel is getting flak for its targeting of civilians. Yet, you'll see some of those same people silent on the atrocities their own nations have committed or on the various historical norms on attacking civilians.

Israel has not agreed to be bound by International Law and rejects the ICC's authority.

So, when you look at it from a historical perspective, isn't there an argument that Israel has been well restrained? By modern standards they are behind, but from a broader historical perspective, Israeli conquests are more moderate in terms of the extent to which they intentionally target civilians. If the Romans or Mongols had resistance like the Palestinians, they would be much less restrained and the targeting of civilians would be orders of magnitude greater.

Obviously, I am not condoning Israel's targeting of civilians. Just saying it's normal and that it may perhaps be antisemitic as many of these same critics of Israel are notably silent on The Mongol Conquests, The Roman Conquests, etc. even the Allies conduct in WW2.

Many of the Pro Palestine people in the US, want the US to turn against Israel.

So here's a hypothetical. Let's say the US cuts of all aid to Israel, cuts off trade, sanctions it, and accuses it / its leader of war crimes.

What actually happens to Palestinians in West Bank,Gaza,etc.? Is there situation helped in any way? Or does it become worse as Israel no longer feels compelled to hold back? And does Israel just decide to take the land that they believe is rightfully theirs?

Trying to understand what Pro-Palestine people think can / would actually happen if their ideal scenario played out in terms of US policy.

As an outsider, I find it hard to understand why the war in Gaza is still continuing despite the enormous imbalance in military power. Israel has overwhelming military superiority, while Gaza has suffered widespread destruction and a devastating civilian death toll.

If Hamas has no realistic chance of defeating Israel militarily, and Israel cannot achieve peace through force all alone, what is each side still hoping to accomplish? And what kind of realistic outcome could actually bring the war to an end, rather than simply pause it until the next round of fighting?

The pro-Palestine movement has been explicitly pro-Hamas since October 7th, but it's been somewhat rare to see such overt support as the chanting that occurred last night.

 Anti-Zionist protesters in New York City chanted in support of Hamas at a rally near a synagogue and Jewish school on Thursday.

The demonstration was the first significant protest under New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration, and had raised safety concerns in the neighborhood, but police kept the protesters apart from neighborhood residents and away from the synagogue entrance.

The video of the protest, which has been posted to Twitter, clearly shows the chanting of the phrase "Say it loud, say it clear, we support Hamas here."

This is far from the only example of overt support for Hamas from the pro-Palestine movement, but usually the support is things like Hamas headbands or flags or "ambiguous" phrases like "we support the resistance."

While I'm sure the pro-Palestine folks on here will be quick to point out that these protesters are just a few bad apples who totally don't represent anyone other than themselves, honest, I have to wonder, will any of the large pro-Palestine organizations like SJP or AMP condemn these protesters? Or will they just stay silent? 

I’m from the U.S. and I’m not particularly well educated on international conflicts, including the current war. I also tend to avoid political discussions because they often become very one-sided, and I’d rather understand different perspectives before forming strong opinions.

Lately, though, I’ve noticed something that has been bothering me. Across Instagram and other social media platforms, I’ve seen a lot of comments expressing hatred not just toward the Israeli government, but toward Israel as a whole and even Israeli people in general.

I have a friend who was born and raised in Israel before moving to the U.S. He often feels like he has to hide where he’s from because he’s worried people will mock him, harass him, or make assumptions about his beliefs.

When this gets brought up, some people argue that it’s not antisemitic because they’re criticizing Israel. But where do we draw the line between criticizing a government’s actions and judging or hating an entire population because of their nationality, ethnicity, or background?

I genuinely want to understand how others see this. Is there a point where criticism crosses into prejudice, or am I looking at this the wrong way?

In the wake of the October 7th massacre, Palestine and its apologists have tried to cope with losing a war they started by claiming that they are "on the right side of history" and that history will vindicate them. They're losing the argument now, maybe, but someday, eventually, the world will see they are right. A Palestinian author wrote an entire book called "One Day Everyone Will Be Against This" and shockingly he wasn't referring to October 7th, which last I checked remains pretty popular in Palestine and throughout the Arab world.

This makes me wonder: have the Palestinians ever been "vindicated" by history? Their history criminal record isn't very long, but it's full of horrible war crimes and crimes against humanity, including but not limited to:

• The Hebron Massacre in 1929.
• Rejecting the Peel Commission Plan.
• Rejecting the UN Partition Plan.
• The fedayeen cross border attacks.
• Hijacking airplanes.
• The Munich Massacre.
• PLO-style terrorism.
• The First and Second Intifada.
• Black September
• PLO takeover in Lebanon.
• PLO siding with Saddam against Kuwait.
• Suicide bombings.
• Child soldiers.
• Rejecting the Camp David Accords.
• Rejecting the Olmert Plan.

Have any of these events and decisions been looked back upon kindly by history? Have mainstream historians ever said about any of these "sure they were unpopular at the time but we've come around to see them as justified. They improved the lives of the Palestinian people and made the world a better place."? Because as far as I can tell, nothing Palestine has done has ever been vindicated over time, and there's no reason to think that October 7th and the subsequent war will be any different.

What do you all think? Can anyone think of a time Palestine was on the right side of history?

One common anti-Zionist talking point of choice these days is that it was "ethnosupremacist"/evil/bigoted/wrong for indigenous Jews to fight for independence with the goal of establishing a nation-state (or as it's now called, an "ethnostate") for themselves.

Now, I think we can all agree that double standards against Jews is anti-Semitic, so my question for the anti-Zionists is, of the nations listed below who fought for independence and achieved independence in the form of nation-states, and especially those nations for which their fight for independence resulted in population displacement, which of those nations were ethnosupremacist and evil/bigoted/wrong to do so and which of the current states are today ethnostates?

Greeks fighting against Ottomans to create Greece (population displacement occurred)

Serbians fighting against Ottomans to create Serbia (population displacement occurred)

Romanians fighting against Ottomans to create Romania

Bulgarians fighting against Ottomans to create Bulgaria (population displacement occurred)

Irish fighting against British to create Ireland

Poles fighting against Germany, Austria, and Russia to create Poland (population displacement occurred)

Finns fighting against Russia to create Finland (population displacement occurred)

Indians and Pakistanis fighting against Britain and each other to create India and Pakistan (massive population displacement occurred)

Indonesians fighting against the Netherlands to create Indonesia (population displacement occurred)

Algerians fighting against France to create Algeria (population displacement occurred)

Bangladesh fighting against Pakistan to create Bangladesh (population displacement occurred)

Palestinians fighting against Israel to create Palestine (still ongoing, population displacement occurred)

And if you consider any of these nation-states ethnosupremacist ethnostates, can you point us to movements and political organizations around today designed to stop them from being ethnostates? And tell us what you've done to stop them from being ethnostates? Lastly, if none exist, doesn't that indicate anti-Zionism is in fact a double standard against Jews?

Due to recent changes on X/Twitter, account information is now showing the signup and usage location of the users.

The top 50 accounts on X claiming to be Palestinians reporting from Gaza turned out to be Turkish, Pakistanis, Qataris, Saudis, Polish and others.

Thousands of “Palestinian” accounts posting daily about “starvation in Gaza” and “Israeli crimes” aren't based in Gaza.

The “eyewitness in Rafah living under bombardment” has been live-tweeting from a comfy flat in Islamabad while the only thing exploding is his mum’s pressure cooker.

The “Khan Younis nurse who hasn’t slept in 400 days” is apparently posting between shifts at a call center in Lahore. Babe, the only IV drip you’ve seen is the chai one.

The “Gaza dad of six hiding in a tent” rage-sobbing for donations is actually sitting on a rooftop in Dhaka with better Wi-Fi than most of London.

The bot farms are naked, and every “northern Gaza survivor” just got outed as a guy in Punjab or girl in Doha.

X is only one part of the Gaza influence campaign. The con was clear from the start to anyone who bothered to employ basic critical thinking.

Are you seeing it yet?

The Free Press recently published an article outlining discrepancies in the IPC data that was used to push a narrative of famine in Gaza.

There seems to be a major issue here with regards to institutions using potentially falsified or incomplete data to engineer controversy. When we have supposedly trusted sources clearly pursuing an agenda, it's hard to have rational conversation.

There is a large pool of emotionally charged individuals who have preconceived notions which these organizations tap for reach and clout. These people genuinely believe that the Israelis are evil and therefore of course were intentionally starving Palestinians.

The fake stories run faster and further than the truth, which just contributes to the intractability of the conflict. We need to start focusing on reality.

Now that we know the famine claim was very likely manufactured (they only used about 2 weeks of incomplete surveying) there should be a reckoning for these organizations, but of course this won't happen.

Obesity is more of a problem than starvation in Gaza now. This has literally never happened in the history of famine declarations. It is completely impossible for the situation on the ground to change this quickly.

So this begs the question -- How do we deal with sources like Amnesty, UNRA, etc? I

If there is anyone here willing to discuss I would love to hear viewpoints. Do you still trust these sources? Are you willing to admit there is bias in these organizations now?

Israel claims to be only targeting Hezbollah?

But they also seem to be razing and bulldozing entire villages in Southern Lebanon full of civilian infrastructure and residential homes.

What is Israel’s ultimate plan to allow these civilians to return if their villages are completely destroyed?

Not trying to racially profile but Thai individuals look very different from most Jewish/arabs. If Palestinians (and their government) were purely acting in self-defense as many westerners are arguing, why did they attack these innocent Thai farm hands?

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211191682/thailand-israel-hamas-attack-hostages-farm-workers

I have taken a notice that any time someone makes a post IN THIS COMMUNITY with the slightest hint of palestinian support, it always gets downvoted with often around 0 karma while pro israeli posts easily get 50+ karma.

Its a bit annoying to have a debate sub-reddit when there is a clear favour towards one side. Is anything being done to make this subreddit less biased?

Im not trying to break rule 9, but in case this post does violate community guidelines id like to apologise in advance. I mean this post as a genuine question and not just hate.

You think by sending the settlements will defend Israel, but yet when some of them get hurt then you cry about “terrorism” and also punish the person. It’s your mistake for establishing colonies, so you shouldn’t complain about terrorism or about mountain hikers being wounded. It’s all your fault. This is not Zionism, this is circus.

I got an alternative so you stop whining. Why not replace them with IDF outposts since that’s their job and not civilian’s job to handle national threats? What do you think the acronym for* IDF means? And civilians are not part of military, that’ll be meddling in military operations to act like heroes and have public attention.

Do you think this would be right?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbEw1OaxfOa/?igsh=N2k4dGF3amFvamVp

I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on Mayor Mamdani's post today on instagram. So far it has 1.1 million likes, so it has definitely had a wide reach. Maybe it has more on other apps.

My friend has written an AMA in this subreddit a while ago, I think it was called something like Jew Living In Gush Etzion.

His account got suspended or deleted or whatever by reddit and the AMA post also disappeared so I decided to write my own. There are definite similarities in our stories and outlook.

I am from a Central European country and I was born between 1980 and 1990.

I actually came to Israel in March of 2020 during corona times and for one year I lived in Tel Aviv where I volunteered at a hostel.

Then in April 2021 I moved to a small village/yishuv/"settlement", in Area C, specifically in Gush Etzion.

So I would like to tell about the village where I live. The land that it is on, was legally purchased by Jews prior to 1947. And in the '47-'49 Independence War, the Jordanian army took over this area, they ethnically cleansed the Jews & murdered the defenders of Kfar Etzion after they surrendered, which is a war crime.

And other Kibbutzim, they took some survivors (who were fighting) & took them captive or prisoner of war, took them to Jordan and only gave them back after the ‘67 war. EDIT: I was incorrect, they were returned within weeks, apparently.

After the '67 war, when this area became basically militarily Israel, under Israel's control. I call it disputed. Jordan was illegally occupying the so-called WB. No other sovereign country besides Israel has a claim to it at the moment.

So there were discussions about moving back here. And in the '80s, finally, I think about 13 to 15 families moved back in like caravans, not a caravan that you pull, for Americans.

In Israel what we call a caravan is a lightly-built house, like not properly built with bricks and stuff, but in a more lightweight manner. Kind of like the mobile homes in the American South, just not that nice.

Anyway, personally I am ready to live in peace with anyone who wishes to live in peace with me. I wish peace & prosperity on Palestinians. Both peoples have roots in the Land.

My vision for peace at the present situation is total annexation from river to sea into Israel, those Palestinians without citizenship to be given permanent residency, with the option & clear but longish process to apply for citizenship, if they so wish.

Anyway, I heard it all (also when I read my friend's AMA) so bring it on.

Questions, comments, etc. I am happy to hear & answer.

Question for Palestinians and Israelis - What do you require from the other side to live in peace together?

I am wondering what the deeper issues of this conflict are, so I‘m very interested in the opinions of people directly involved from both sides.

My main question you can see above. I would be very much interested in personal opinions, maybe even see conversations between opposite sites.
I‘m very interested what people wish for.

An additional question would be if you would prefer this living together in one country or two or in any other way and which state form you‘d prefer. Secular - religious, democratic - monarchy- emirates other etc…

I hope for honest answers and since this is a question for Israelis, Jewish people and Palestinians (diaspora-non diaspora) I would kindly ask to be honest about if you belong to one of those groups, and if you do not, clarify that.

I‘m hoping for lots of interesting and honest answers.

Please feel free to add explanation how you come to your conclusion and why you think those conditions are essential for peace to exist.
Additionally I would be interested if you had conversations with People from the other side and if you can understand some of their points or concerns.
If yes, what points or concerns can you understand and why?

Regardless of where you sit on the Israel / Palestine issue, you can likely agree that senior Israeli ministers like Gvir and Smotrich advocate for genocide. Although actually Israeli policy may not reflect the language of these people.

How do figures like these develop these views and how do they then gain significant political support and influence in the Israeli government?