You are missing the point on purpose because the reality is indefensible. You talk about dead bodies because you can't talk about the ideology that outlived them.
That's not a "metaphor", but a direct and documented political bloodline. The Irgun's violent, expansionist and terrorist ideology was channeled directly into the Herut party[0], which became the Likud party, which put the Irgun's commander, Menachem Begin, in the Prime Minister's office. The Dahiya Doctrine isn't a metaphor, but Irgun's philosophy of collective punishment aka terrorism written down as official state policy.
And let's put down this already debunked lie you keep repeating. Israel did not "handle" its terrorist problem. It institutionalized it. It promoted it. It didn't have a version of Altalena to crush its extremists. It had an Altalena to consolidate power, and then it put the terrorist leader of the Altalena in charge of the entire "state". You didn't solve your terrorism problem. You made terrorism your state policy, which now manifested itself in the inevitable conclusion of Genocide.
[0] The same Herut party btw about whom Einstein said: "a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties." - https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2014-12-04/ty-article/.premiu...
That is one of the most grotesque whitewashes of Zionist terrorism I have ever read. You are trying to rewrite a story of Zionist terrorism and colonial succession into a heartwarming family drama.
The idea that Zionists were just a colony "looking to Britain for guidance" is an understatement. They were a de facto rival colonial project that used terror to expel the British, the Zionists even ironically described the British as occupiers of Palestine.[0] The Zionists weren't looking for "guidance," they were busy planting bombs[1].
Your claim that it was "never personal" and there was "no hate" is a disgusting lie. Tell that to the families of the British sergeants the Irgun hanged and booby-trapped. Tell that to the scores of British officials murdered in the King David Hotel bombing. It was a vicious Zionist terror campaign, and pretending otherwise is obscene.
Finally, your "convenient proxy" explanation sanitizes the ugly truth. The West didn't ally with Israel despite its history of terrorism, but they allied with it because of it. Israel's violent founding proved it could be a ruthless and effective enforcer for Western imperial interests. That is the real foundation of your "special relationship."
The expected Zionist modus operandi, whitewash Zionist crimes, then blame the victim for responding.
Your "socialist" argument is a weak attempt to hide behind a political label. It doesn't matter what they called themselves. The "socialist"[1] Haganah and Palmach were the main engines of the Nakba. The distinction between them and the Irgun was a public relations strategy, a "good cop, bad cop" routine for the same unified colonial project of dispossessing Palestinians.
The Altalena was a colonizing force consolidating its monopoly on violence to better oppress and dispossess the Palestinians. You cannot compare that to a occupied population struggling under a foreign military boot. Palestinian "leadership problems" and disunity are a direct result of decades of Israeli assassinations, imprisonment, and engineered fragmentation.[2]
That is a disgustingly cynical and dishonest argument, a masterclass in colonial propaganda.
You demand the people being crushed under a boot "take responsibility," while giving a pass to Zionists who have all the power and are the perpetrators responsible for it all. It's a sick moral inversion. You cry about a lack of peace while defending the Zionist entity that has demonstrated for a century that it is not interested in peace, only in surrender and domination. Also, the audacity to speak of a "prospect for peace" when Zionists has systematically sabotaged it at every turn, even murdering diplomats during negotiations.[0]
Another classic Zionist deflection is to make it about "Jews" so you can deflect from the racist[1], European colonial project that they are resisting. This is not a religious war. It is an anti-colonial struggle against Zionism. The only people who insist on making it about "Jews" are the Zionists themselves, because it's their most effective propaganda shield.
The violence you clutch your pearls over is the inevitable, desperate product of a hundred years of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. You are blaming the oppressed for the consequences of their own oppression. It is the oldest and most pathetic trick in the colonial playbook.
[1] "The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes [kushim in Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - Weizmann, quoted by Arthur Ruppin in: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamedinah , Jerusalem, 1984, p.140.
>The terrorist attack of 2023 had such magnitude that Israel was allowed to do 50 times worse with no immediate punishment, but this pretence is getting old and they're in too deep
Israel has always been allowed to commit any crime it wants "with no immediate punishment", no sanctions, but maybe a few mean words. Sometimes certain governments would impose a symbolic sanctions on specific individual lunatic settlers as a form of "see we did some thing", but otherwise Israel's history is the history of impunity.
This is a brief history of how the Zionist community in Palestine, and then the state of Israel, used its own civilians as shields in its conquest of the land.
Zionist leaders realized early on that Zionism was a civilian and a military enterprise. In 1919, the first Zionist militia, HaShomer (which evolved into the Haganah, which evolved into the Israeli army) declared “the need to begin widespread settlement close to the existing boundary lines for the purpose of defending the country.” The idea was to establish new Zionist colonies in the border areas. The idea was to put civilians in harm’s way.
But the problem ran much deeper. Zionist fighters soon realized they would need to embed themselves in civilian communities to establish a self-sustaining recruitment base and fund militia operations. The latter was achieved through combining agricultural and military training in civilian settlements. The financial support for military training was attained through the agricultural output of the settlement.
By 1936, Jewish Agency Executive Committee Chairman, David Ben-Gurion, came to agree with HaShomer’s idea to establish settlements in border areas. HaShomer “once had a good idea,” he said, “creating … settlements along the country's borders. It appears necessary to establish settlements on every mountaintop in Palestine with crucial strategic importance.”
The point became all the more obvious during the 1948 War. In April 1948, Ben Gurion told his government: “We must establish a string of settlements of a new type, different from the regular ones, that are not based on the sacred writ of the military academy but rather, constitute mixed battalions of settlers and warriors, farmers and fighters.” For Ben-Gurion, this was the only path to victory.
In the aftermath of the War, Ben Gurion outlined the roadmap for how Israel should continue to settle the country: “Our conquest in the Negev and the Galilee will not be sustainable unless we quickly populate these portions of the country…[with]...the establishment of a long line of settlements on the frontier.”
And so, in the 1950s, Israel built civilian centers in border areas to serve as a first line of military defense. 26 new settlements were established along the Lebanese border, the Jordan river and the Gilboa foothills; 13 on the eastern border, 8 in the Jerusalem corridor and 25 on the southern front. In total, some 108 such militant civilian settlements were built in Israel after 1948, including towns like Nahal Oz, short for Nahlayim Mul Aza, “Nahal soldiers across from Gaza,” which tragically ended up serving the purpose for which it was built. The point was to put Israeli civilians on the front lines as human shields.
Agricultural work conducted under guard in Moshav Nitzanei Oz (“buds of strength”) in 1954. Founded in 1951 as a Nahal settlement, the moshav was located on the Jordanian border and the outskirts of Tulkarem source (p.72)
Initially, the status of the citizens in the border towns was “identical to reserve soldiers,” according to Israeli historian Yoav Gelber. These “civil” communities were even organized in companies and platoons and integrated into the Israeli military’s command and control hierarchy. The Israeli military trained and equipped these civilians in classic civilian stuff like anti-tank and light arms instruction.
After the 1967 War, Israel took a similar approach in the newly conquered territories.
In July 1970, Israel confiscated land in Hebron by military order, ostensibly for “security purposes.” The first buildings on it would be falsely presented as a military facility, according to Israeli cabinet meeting notes. Shortly thereafter, Israel built 250 civilian housing units in Kiryat Arba within the perimeter of the area specified for the military unit’s use.
Similarly, in 1971, Israel declared Palestinian village of Aqraba a military training zone. By 1975, the Jewish settlement of Gitit was established on its ruins.
The idea in the 1970s was to enmesh Israel’s civilian and military presence in Palestine. Then Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres called for creating a strip of civilian settlements slicing across the West Bank “for defensive purposes” and another strip near Jerusalem to break the occupied territory into fragments. He added, “there’s a line of army bases in Samaria…I’d put a small civilian settlement next to each one.”
By 1980, the World Zionist Organization had developed a “Master Plan” for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The plan called for settling the land between and among the Arab population to make it “hard for Palestinians to create territorial contiguity and political unity.” Civilian settlement in the service of military conquest!
“From my perspective,” Avigdor Lierman said in 2017, “it's clear that the settlements in Judea and Samaria and those here in the area of Jericho and the Dead Sea are the State of Israel’s true defensive wall.”
Israel’s military headquarters are located in the Tel Aviv city center, a few hundred meters from a large high school. All the major bus lines pass right by. Tel Aviv’s main hospital -- the Ichilov Hospital -- is just to the north and is connected to the base by emergency tunnels. The Israeli army radio station is located in a residential apartment building & its antennas are on the roof of that residential building.
Then there’s Israel’s militant settlers, who often carry out pogroms and acts of violence against Palestinians together with the Israeli military. What’s more, the Israeli military has established settler militias, known as “territorial defense units,” which are civilian groups armed and trained by the army.
All of this makes Israel’s claim that “Hamas uses human shields” deeply cynical.
In its campaign of mass murder in Gaza, +972 reported Israel prefers to strike Hamas fighters in their homes, together with their families, so long as no more than 20 civilians are killed per strike (for higher level commanders, 300 civilians massacred is considered acceptable).
Imagine if Hamas adopted this military doctrine. What percentage of Israeli households would be legitimate targets? How many Israeli households have an active-duty soldier or a reservist, or live within 100 feet of a household with a soldier or a reservist, and thus would equally be a target given Israel’s use of dumb bombs? [Note: Half the bombs Israel drops on Gaza are dumb bombs that often land 100 feet away from their target]. I’d venture to guess the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israeli civilians would be targets.
Of course, targeting civilians is always a war crime, even if they are being used as human shields. That’s true no matter who is doing the targeting.
Zionist leaders have embraced the use of Zionist, Jewish and Israeli human shields for more than a century. It’s time for this practice to end." - Zachary Foster, jewish historian, founder of palestinenexus.com, [https://palestine.beehiiv.com/p/brief-history-israels-use-is...]
You're presenting the standard Zionist narrative, a sanitized version of history that conveniently omits the actual ideology at play. Your entire argument is built to portray a European colonial project as a desperate search for "safety", if it ever had been about "safety" then why did they reject the Ugandan land they were offered? They needed a myth that justified their colonialism, which they had learned from the European colonizers whom they openly admired in their letters.
Let's correct the record. First, you claim Zionism was just a reaction to antisemitism, not the cause of the conflict. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. Political Zionism was a confident and proactive colonial project, growing from the exact same soil of European nationalism and race theory as antisemitism itself. The early Zionist leadership were not "traumatized victims" at all. They were confident Europeans, operating in the same intellectual environment as the "Scramble for Africa" who saw themselves as a superior people with the right to colonize. This wasn't some abstract theory, but their explicit worldview. As one of their key leaders, Chaim Weizmann noted: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes [kushim in Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - Weizmann, quoted by Arthur Ruppin in: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamedinah , Jerusalem, 1984, p.140.
This colonial mindset is also why your second claim, that the focus on Palestine was just a pragmatic choice that only became central after Balfour, is historical nonsense. The proof is again the Zionist leadership's rejection of the Uganda offer. If the goal was simply to find a safe haven for worried Jews, a vast territory in Africa would have been the logical answer. They refused it because Zionism was never just about safety. It was a nationalist colonial project with a specific, predetermined target, and their argument was about claiming the right to do what other Europeans were doing i.e. conquering and colonizing a land inhabited by people they had already, in their own words, dismissed as having "no value."
Finally, and most cynically, you absurdly present the ancient and laughable claim to "Judea" as if it were a legitimate historical justification. You're framing a modern political maneuver as some kind of ancient "right". The secular, European, and atheist founders of Zionism did not even believe in the religious basis of this claim at all. They saw the biblical narrative noting more as useful myth-making tools to justify their colonialism. They weaponized these ancient stories, which they themselves viewed as superstition, for the very modern purpose of justifying the dispossession of the native population and legitimizing their colonial project. It was a calculated propaganda strategy, not a reclamation of faith. A faith in which they didn't even believe in, but which they were cynically weaponizing.
I appreciate it, but I'm merely a student of the wonderful work produced by other scholars and educators. All the praise belongs to them, it's their knowledge and work that I've tried to present as I've learned it.
>I agree with most of what you said, except that I don’t think there is anything noble about Hamas. They have a cause but their methods are despicable and stupid. Let’s just entertain the idea that they would have strictly targeted only military targets in their attack. Rightly or wrongly, that would have been a huge propaganda win for them.
It's clear that you have a very surface level understanding of the entire history and I highly recommend that you first study the whole history extensively[0] before you cast judgement. While you're at it, make sure to study other revolts and its gory details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner's_Rebellion
There are several aspects of this which are rather fascinating:
1) The response of Oct 7 to almost 100 years of brutal colonization, ethnic-cleansing and mass-murder of Palestinians since the Nakba and the Tantura-massascre [1] was only a tiny fraction of the pain the colonizer suffered compared to the crimes committed against Palestinians. Regardless, it has been treated as pretty much the worst thing ever, while it factually was only a tiny fraction of the the pain compared to the crimes committed against Palestinians for almost a century! "Nothing justifies October 7, but October 7 somehow justifies everything" - The resistance has proven the ungodly amount of bias through which the world judged them and they forced the world to re-calibrate their unjust scales.
2) You're talking about their methods, but you haven't even studied their history comprehensively, all that they have tried, what misery Israel has inflicted upon them and their families for decades. An enemy that's unparalleled in its deviousness - invites you to peace talks, but is only interested in trying to murder your diplomats. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/12/israels-strike...]. How would you deal with such ruthless colonizers? You judge the resistance by the 1 thing that finally forced the world to properly pay attention. Say what you want, but it was Oct 7 which forced the world to properly study the history of Palestine. For almost a century the Palestinians only received fake sympathy while much of the world uncritically accepted and even regurgitated Zionist lies knowingly or unknowingly. The outrage that was shown on Oct 7 was never ever shown when Palestinians were the victims, so this was a key moment when such biased individuals were confronted with massive evidence that woke them up to their selective outrage and their unjust judgement.
3) It was the severity of Oct 7 that humiliated the colonizer who had always seen themselves as superior to the "kushim" of Palestine ("The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes [kushim in Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - Weizmann, quoted by Arthur Ruppin in: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamedinah , Jerusalem, 1984, p.140.). It was that humiliation that the colonizer felt - they couldn't even bear to suffer a fraction of a fraction of the pain they inflicted upon the Palestinians for almost a century, such that they whipped themselves into a genocidal-frenzy and dropped their diplomatic hasbara mask. The resistance unmasked the colonizer, made them drop their masks - made the world understand who the Zionists really are and who they have always been. ["Leibowitz said that the State of Israel and Zionism had become more sacred than Jewish humanist values and described Israeli conduct in the occupied Palestinian territories as "Judeo-Nazi" in nature while warning of the dehumanizing effect of the occupation on the victims and the oppressors." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz ].
And even after all that, much of the world still stubbornly refused to believe their own eyes while observing the evil that Zionists livestreamed so proudly. Only after Zionists consistently and persistently insisted on being so openly and proudly evil for almost 2 years straight is when people started to believe what they were witnessing:
4) Go through Palestine's history, enlighten the people how your methods would have been so much less "despicable and stupid" in resisting colonizers who have been absolutely unscrupulous and devious at every step: https://web.archive.org/web/20231029055310/ojp.gov/ncjrs/vir... . Colonizers who have murdered your ancestors and established an apartheid ethno-state [2][3] on the mass-graves of your women and children, while raving on your stolen land - within your field of vision from the open-air prison in which they have locked you up.
>I think on a deeper level the Hamas attack was an Iranian proxy attack and to them, bargaining chips and hostages are just details. They play a dirty game.
That is such a shallow understanding of someone for whom the whole region is just a source of entertainment. While Hamas is an "Iranian proxy" in a similar way that Ukraine is an "American proxy" that doesn't mean that Hamas and Ukraine don't have agency - who, despite their reliance on outside help, have a righteous cause and will keep defending their lands with or without that help.
It's also ironic that you would describe it as "on a deeper level" when it's quite the opposite - it's shallow and misguided. Hamas is a Sunni militant group, while Iran is Shia. You clearly have no understanding whatsoever how these groups have historically fought each other - just look at how they have been fiercely fighting each other in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
So why would Iran help Hamas then? For Iran, attaching themselves to a righteous cause such as Palestine has been a very effective tool to whitewash Iran's image and present Iran as "Axis of Resistance" despite having caused much harm to the Sunni-Muslims in the region (e.g. Iran cooperated with America in destroying Iraq, Iran also helped Assad oppress the Syrians for decades). Thus, helping the Palestinian resistance gives the shady Iranian regime legitimacy and positive PR like no other cause in the world. (the average iranian may genuinely support Palestine, because they are mostly unaware of the meta-game being played by their own regime)
Why does Hamas accept help from Iran? This should be much easier to understand. Most of the Arab regimes are ruled by puppets who are subservient to America and have betrayed the resistance. One of the main reasons for October 7 was Saudi's MBS being close to normalizing with Israel and thus sealing Palestine's fate forever. This was a "now or never" moment so the resistance made clear that they mean business and that they won't let any normalization happen without a sovereign Palestinian state. Back to Iran - so when you're in a dire situation, you can't be picky with your allies. Iran helps Hamas because it's a great tool to whitewash the Iranian image and Hamas gets weapons in return. October 7 however was most certainly not in Iran's interest in any way. Despite Iran's harsh language towards America, they very much tried to cozy up and seek "forgiveness" because of the crushing sanctions. Iran may play dirty games like Israel does, but Hamas doesn't - for the resistance it's quite literally about survival and resisting zionist-colonialism.
[Some more examples. In 2012, relations between Iran and Hamas soured after Hamas refused to support Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad, a key Iranian ally in the Syrian civil war. This led to Iran taking punitive measures against Hamas.
- As a financial punishment, Iran cut its funding to Hamas. This financial support had been estimated at around $23 million per month and the cut caused a significant financial crisis for Hamas in Gaza.
- Along with financial cuts, Iran also ceased military cooperation, which ended the supply of weapons to Hamas from Tehran.
- They began to rebuild their relationship around three years later, though tensions remained (see links below)
No, normal people understand very well that they are. They are the children of Palestinians who were murdered or ethnically-cleansed in the Nakba and then locked up in an open-air prison. They are the resistance to zionist-colonialism. You obviously can't describe them as such, since you are a Zionist for whom such primitive smears are useful propaganda designed to deny them the internationally recognized right to armed resistance.
That's not a "metaphor", but a direct and documented political bloodline. The Irgun's violent, expansionist and terrorist ideology was channeled directly into the Herut party[0], which became the Likud party, which put the Irgun's commander, Menachem Begin, in the Prime Minister's office. The Dahiya Doctrine isn't a metaphor, but Irgun's philosophy of collective punishment aka terrorism written down as official state policy.
And let's put down this already debunked lie you keep repeating. Israel did not "handle" its terrorist problem. It institutionalized it. It promoted it. It didn't have a version of Altalena to crush its extremists. It had an Altalena to consolidate power, and then it put the terrorist leader of the Altalena in charge of the entire "state". You didn't solve your terrorism problem. You made terrorism your state policy, which now manifested itself in the inevitable conclusion of Genocide.
[0] The same Herut party btw about whom Einstein said: "a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties." - https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2014-12-04/ty-article/.premiu...