Hamas attacks Israel
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
The Jewish Supremacist puppeteers propping up Netanyahu believe almost the same thing but Jews get to live instead of being wiped out by God if they don't follow Jesus.
What does Israel have to hide? Are they going into Gaza City to round up Al-Qassam as they say or to whip out the excavators to cover up the crime scene
?
Germany 'strongly opposes' Netanyahu gov't plan to split West Bank with settlements
Germany "strongly opposes" the Israeli government's plan to build in the E1 area of the West Bank, which would sever the northern West Bank from the south. "Such steps would be contrary to international law and would make a two-state solution impossible. That is why we strongly advise against moving further down this path," a statement from Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said
Germany "strongly opposes" the Israeli government's plan to build in the E1 area of the West Bank, which would sever the northern West Bank from the south. "Such steps would be contrary to international law and would make a two-state solution impossible. That is why we strongly advise against moving further down this path," a statement from Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said
Last Saturday, Netanyahu's office put out a statement saying that Israel would only "agree to a deal on condition that all the hostages are released in one go,” and that the conditions for ending the war included the disarming of Hamas, the demilitarisation of Gaza, Israeli control of the Gaza perimeter, and the installation of non-Hamas and non-Palestinian Authority governance.
In a video statement during a visit with the Gaza division's headquarters in Israel on Thursday night, Netanyahu said he had "instructed to immediately begin negotiations for the release of all our hostages".
"I have come to approve the IDF's (Israel Defense Forces) plans to take control of Gaza City and defeat Hamas," he said.
apple.news
"These two matters - defeating Hamas and releasing all our hostages - go hand in hand," Netanyahu added, without providing details about what the next stage of talks would entail.
Hamas agreed to a proposal drawn up by Qatari and Egyptian mediators for a 60-day ceasefire on Monday, which according to Qatar would see the release of half (?) of the remaining hostages in Gaza???
apple.news
And they’re looking for what response with this? Certainly not an end to this latest round started Oct 7th, 2023. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he has instructed negotiations to begin for the release of all remaining hostages and an end to the war in Gaza on terms "acceptable to Israel".
apple.news
apple.news
In a video statement during a visit with the Gaza division's headquarters in Israel on Thursday night, Netanyahu said he had "instructed to immediately begin negotiations for the release of all our hostages".
"I have come to approve the IDF's (Israel Defense Forces) plans to take control of Gaza City and defeat Hamas," he said.
Avi Benlolo: The world's backwards sympathy for Israel's terrorist enemies — National Post
Tyrants are rewarded with statehood while terrorists get press credentials. If we allow this madness to go unchallenged, what comes next?
Hamas agreed to a proposal drawn up by Qatari and Egyptian mediators for a 60-day ceasefire on Monday, which according to Qatar would see the release of half (?) of the remaining hostages in Gaza???
J.D. Tuccille: The alleged 'journalistic malpractice' behind questionable photos of starving Gazans — National Post
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes
And they’re looking for what response with this? Certainly not an end to this latest round started Oct 7th, 2023. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he has instructed negotiations to begin for the release of all remaining hostages and an end to the war in Gaza on terms "acceptable to Israel".
German government calls recognition of Palestinian state 'counterproductive' — Reuters
A German government spokesman said on Friday that Berlin has current no plans to recognise a Palestinian state because that would undermine any efforts to reach a negotiated two-state solution with Israel.
Netanyahu says Israel to begin Gaza ceasefire negotiations to end war, release hostages — Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that he had directed the immediate initiation of negotiations for the release of all hostages in Gaza and the conclusion of the war there on terms acceptable to Israel.
Makes sense. That's what we basically said in 1945. "Surrender or die."
They seemed pretty clear about it also. Govern yourselves accordingly, etc…
Its the same deal offered in May.Last Saturday, Netanyahu's office put out a statement saying that Israel would only "agree to a deal on condition that all the hostages are released in one go,” and that the conditions for ending the war included the disarming of Hamas, the demilitarisation of Gaza, Israeli control of the Gaza perimeter, and the installation of non-Hamas and non-Palestinian Authority governance.
View attachment 30705
In a video statement during a visit with the Gaza division's headquarters in Israel on Thursday night, Netanyahu said he had "instructed to immediately begin negotiations for the release of all our hostages".
View attachment 30704
"I have come to approve the IDF's (Israel Defense Forces) plans to take control of Gaza City and defeat Hamas," he said.
View attachment 30706"These two matters - defeating Hamas and releasing all our hostages - go hand in hand," Netanyahu added, without providing details about what the next stage of talks would entail.Avi Benlolo: The world's backwards sympathy for Israel's terrorist enemies — National Post
Tyrants are rewarded with statehood while terrorists get press credentials. If we allow this madness to go unchallenged, what comes next?
View attachment 30699
View attachment 30700
Hamas agreed to a proposal drawn up by Qatari and Egyptian mediators for a 60-day ceasefire on Monday, which according to Qatar would see the release of half (?) of the remaining hostages in Gaza???
View attachment 30701J.D. Tuccille: The alleged 'journalistic malpractice' behind questionable photos of starving Gazans — National Post
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes
And they’re looking for what response with this? Certainly not an end to this latest round started Oct 7th, 2023. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he has instructed negotiations to begin for the release of all remaining hostages and an end to the war in Gaza on terms "acceptable to Israel".
German government calls recognition of Palestinian state 'counterproductive' — Reuters
A German government spokesman said on Friday that Berlin has current no plans to recognise a Palestinian state because that would undermine any efforts to reach a negotiated two-state solution with Israel.Netanyahu says Israel to begin Gaza ceasefire negotiations to end war, release hostages — Reuters
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that he had directed the immediate initiation of negotiations for the release of all hostages in Gaza and the conclusion of the war there on terms acceptable to Israel.
Who gets to go to prison when the Special Military Operation ends? Netanyahu.
Courts are forcing his attendance at the end of October. When convicted, Israel has an election that will result in the fascists outted.
10 weeks left.
Last edited:
So I asked AI "how many times has Netanyahu lied about aims for Gaza"?
Determining an exact count of times Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "lied" about Israel's aims in Gaza is inherently subjective and challenging, as it requires assessing intent, context, and veracity—elements often debated in political discourse. Israel's publicly stated goals for the war in Gaza, as articulated by Netanyahu, have consistently included destroying Hamas's military and governing capabilities, returning all hostages, ensuring long-term security for Israel, and not permanently occupying the territory or displacing civilians.
However, numerous fact-checks from independent sources, media outlets, and experts have identified falsehoods, inconsistencies, lack of evidence, or misleading statements in his claims related to these aims and their implementation.
These often revolve around civilian casualties, aid delivery, occupation intentions, pre-war policies toward Hamas, and the feasibility of the goals.
Based on fact-checking reports and analyses (primarily from 2024-2025, amid the ongoing conflict), here are key instances where Netanyahu's statements have been deemed inaccurate or contradictory. I've grouped them thematically for clarity, drawing from sources like CNN, Al Jazeera, TIME, Haaretz, and others. This is not exhaustive, as new statements and analyses continue to emerge, but it represents prominent examples highlighted in verified reporting.
1. Denying Intent to Permanently Occupy Gaza or Displace Civilians
Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel's goal is "not to occupy Gaza" but to "free it from Hamas," including in a January 2024 English-language speech and an August 2025 press conference where he said, "Our goal is not to occupy Gaza, our goal is to free Gaza."
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Critics and analyses argue this is misleading or false, as Netanyahu's approved plans involve indefinite "security control" over Gaza, which amounts to de facto occupation. For example, a 2025 cabinet-endorsed plan to take full control of Gaza City (displacing ~1 million residents) is seen as a step toward prolonged military presence without a clear exit, contradicting claims of non-occupation. Military experts note this sustains endless conflict rather than achieving stated goals, serving political aims like delaying accountability for the October 7, 2023, failures.0049a3369d0b557557 Additionally, far-right coalition partners push for resettlement, and Netanyahu has blocked ceasefire deals that could end the war without full Israeli control.d03bdf
2. Claiming the War Goals Are Achievable and War Could End Quickly
Netanyahu has said the war will continue until "all goals are achieved," including total destruction of Hamas, and that it could end "tomorrow" if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns hostages (e.g., in July 2024 Congress address and 2025 statements).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Israel's own military spokesperson, Daniel Hagari, called destroying Hamas "unachievable," as it operates as an idea and guerrilla force rather than a conventional army. Netanyahu has rejected viable ceasefire proposals (e.g., Hamas accepting terms in 2024, involving Arab-led forces and a reformed Palestinian Authority), insisting on indefinite control, which prolongs the war. This contradicts his claims of seeking a swift end and has been seen as stalling for political survival.ac47994ccce38d53e1
3. Denying a Policy of Starvation or Blocking Aid
Netanyahu has called allegations of Israel starving Gazans "utter nonsense" and a "fabrication," claiming over 40,000 aid trucks entered Gaza providing sufficient calories (e.g., July 2024 Congress speech; August 2025 denial of famine policy, saying "if we wanted starvation... 2 million Gazans wouldn’t be living today").
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Israel imposed a "complete siege" in October 2023, halting food, water, and fuel, and aid levels remain a fraction of pre-war needs (UN reports ~104 trucks/day vs. 500 pre-war). UN experts declared famine in Gaza by July 2024, with 96% facing crisis-level insecurity. Aid agencies cite arbitrary restrictions, and Human Rights Watch accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon. Netanyahu admitted in 2025 that aid was limited for "diplomatic reasons" to avoid "images of mass starvation," contradicting outright denials.b0902568daa8826b9f
4. Understating Civilian Casualties and Claiming Precision
Netanyahu claimed Gaza has "one of the lowest ratios of combatants to non-combatants" in urban warfare history, with "practically none" civilian deaths in Rafah except one incident (July 2024 Congress address).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Gaza's Health Ministry reports ~39,000+ deaths (70% women/children), verified by groups like Airwars. Multiple Rafah strikes killed civilians (e.g., 45+ in May 2024 camp attack; 4,300+ killed since May). Israel uses unguided bombs (~50% of munitions), causing widespread harm, and attacks on "safe zones" contradict minimization claims. Experts call the ratio claim dubious.b4a6ee1da7b751aa2a
5. Denying Pre-War Support for Hamas to Undermine Palestinian Unity
Netanyahu denied "bankrolling Hamas" or saying he supported it to divide Palestinians (August 2024 TIME interview).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Under Netanyahu, Israel approved ~$30 million/month from Qatar to Gaza (2014 onward), totaling $1+ billion by 2018, freeing funds for weapons. He reportedly said in 2019 he wanted to fund Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state, per Israeli media quotes. This pre-war policy contradicts current aims to destroy Hamas, as it strengthened the group.d321d90d666f
6. Claiming Hamas Was Deterred Pre-October 7
Netanyahu said security agencies assumed Hamas was deterred, and he "didn't challenge enough" that view (2024 interview).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: His chiefs warned him Hamas saw opportunities due to Israeli divisions; Netanyahu ignored them and publicly claimed deterrence (e.g., 2021 TV, 2022 memoir). This relates to war aims, as it underplays his role in the intelligence failure that necessitated the current goals.7cfecf
7. Asserting Strategic Need for Control of Key Areas Like Philadelphi Corridor
Netanyahu claimed remaining on the Philadelphi route (Gaza-Egypt border) is a "diplomatic-strategic need" for goals like demilitarization (September 2024 press conference).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Haaretz found "no basis in reality" for this, as it contradicts negotiation progress and escalates conflict without advancing stated aims.d82141c4cb4c
Additional Context and Criticisms
Hamas and Palestinian officials have accused Netanyahu of a "series of lies" in press conferences, e.g., blaming all issues on Hamas while ignoring Israeli actions.1d6f97 Reports also reveal early war orders to "bomb everything" without target verification, suggesting aims beyond precision.b6d7fc
Defenders argue mistranslations or media bias inflate accusations (e.g., claims of Gaza settlements were about Israeli border areas).ae757b542f09 However, the volume of fact-checks from diverse sources (including Israeli media like Haaretz and Times of Israel) suggests a pattern of inconsistencies.
In total, fact-checks identify at least 10-15 specific misleading claims related to Gaza aims across major speeches and interviews, but the true "count" could be higher depending on how one defines repeated or similar statements. For a non-partisan view, these discrepancies highlight tensions between stated objectives and on-ground realities, amid international criticism and domestic protests in Israel. If you're referring to a specific statement or period, provide more details for deeper analysis.
Determining an exact count of times Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "lied" about Israel's aims in Gaza is inherently subjective and challenging, as it requires assessing intent, context, and veracity—elements often debated in political discourse. Israel's publicly stated goals for the war in Gaza, as articulated by Netanyahu, have consistently included destroying Hamas's military and governing capabilities, returning all hostages, ensuring long-term security for Israel, and not permanently occupying the territory or displacing civilians.
However, numerous fact-checks from independent sources, media outlets, and experts have identified falsehoods, inconsistencies, lack of evidence, or misleading statements in his claims related to these aims and their implementation.
These often revolve around civilian casualties, aid delivery, occupation intentions, pre-war policies toward Hamas, and the feasibility of the goals.
Based on fact-checking reports and analyses (primarily from 2024-2025, amid the ongoing conflict), here are key instances where Netanyahu's statements have been deemed inaccurate or contradictory. I've grouped them thematically for clarity, drawing from sources like CNN, Al Jazeera, TIME, Haaretz, and others. This is not exhaustive, as new statements and analyses continue to emerge, but it represents prominent examples highlighted in verified reporting.
1. Denying Intent to Permanently Occupy Gaza or Displace Civilians
Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that Israel's goal is "not to occupy Gaza" but to "free it from Hamas," including in a January 2024 English-language speech and an August 2025 press conference where he said, "Our goal is not to occupy Gaza, our goal is to free Gaza."
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Critics and analyses argue this is misleading or false, as Netanyahu's approved plans involve indefinite "security control" over Gaza, which amounts to de facto occupation. For example, a 2025 cabinet-endorsed plan to take full control of Gaza City (displacing ~1 million residents) is seen as a step toward prolonged military presence without a clear exit, contradicting claims of non-occupation. Military experts note this sustains endless conflict rather than achieving stated goals, serving political aims like delaying accountability for the October 7, 2023, failures.0049a3369d0b557557 Additionally, far-right coalition partners push for resettlement, and Netanyahu has blocked ceasefire deals that could end the war without full Israeli control.d03bdf
2. Claiming the War Goals Are Achievable and War Could End Quickly
Netanyahu has said the war will continue until "all goals are achieved," including total destruction of Hamas, and that it could end "tomorrow" if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns hostages (e.g., in July 2024 Congress address and 2025 statements).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Israel's own military spokesperson, Daniel Hagari, called destroying Hamas "unachievable," as it operates as an idea and guerrilla force rather than a conventional army. Netanyahu has rejected viable ceasefire proposals (e.g., Hamas accepting terms in 2024, involving Arab-led forces and a reformed Palestinian Authority), insisting on indefinite control, which prolongs the war. This contradicts his claims of seeking a swift end and has been seen as stalling for political survival.ac47994ccce38d53e1
3. Denying a Policy of Starvation or Blocking Aid
Netanyahu has called allegations of Israel starving Gazans "utter nonsense" and a "fabrication," claiming over 40,000 aid trucks entered Gaza providing sufficient calories (e.g., July 2024 Congress speech; August 2025 denial of famine policy, saying "if we wanted starvation... 2 million Gazans wouldn’t be living today").
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Israel imposed a "complete siege" in October 2023, halting food, water, and fuel, and aid levels remain a fraction of pre-war needs (UN reports ~104 trucks/day vs. 500 pre-war). UN experts declared famine in Gaza by July 2024, with 96% facing crisis-level insecurity. Aid agencies cite arbitrary restrictions, and Human Rights Watch accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon. Netanyahu admitted in 2025 that aid was limited for "diplomatic reasons" to avoid "images of mass starvation," contradicting outright denials.b0902568daa8826b9f
4. Understating Civilian Casualties and Claiming Precision
Netanyahu claimed Gaza has "one of the lowest ratios of combatants to non-combatants" in urban warfare history, with "practically none" civilian deaths in Rafah except one incident (July 2024 Congress address).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Gaza's Health Ministry reports ~39,000+ deaths (70% women/children), verified by groups like Airwars. Multiple Rafah strikes killed civilians (e.g., 45+ in May 2024 camp attack; 4,300+ killed since May). Israel uses unguided bombs (~50% of munitions), causing widespread harm, and attacks on "safe zones" contradict minimization claims. Experts call the ratio claim dubious.b4a6ee1da7b751aa2a
5. Denying Pre-War Support for Hamas to Undermine Palestinian Unity
Netanyahu denied "bankrolling Hamas" or saying he supported it to divide Palestinians (August 2024 TIME interview).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Under Netanyahu, Israel approved ~$30 million/month from Qatar to Gaza (2014 onward), totaling $1+ billion by 2018, freeing funds for weapons. He reportedly said in 2019 he wanted to fund Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state, per Israeli media quotes. This pre-war policy contradicts current aims to destroy Hamas, as it strengthened the group.d321d90d666f
6. Claiming Hamas Was Deterred Pre-October 7
Netanyahu said security agencies assumed Hamas was deterred, and he "didn't challenge enough" that view (2024 interview).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: His chiefs warned him Hamas saw opportunities due to Israeli divisions; Netanyahu ignored them and publicly claimed deterrence (e.g., 2021 TV, 2022 memoir). This relates to war aims, as it underplays his role in the intelligence failure that necessitated the current goals.7cfecf
7. Asserting Strategic Need for Control of Key Areas Like Philadelphi Corridor
Netanyahu claimed remaining on the Philadelphi route (Gaza-Egypt border) is a "diplomatic-strategic need" for goals like demilitarization (September 2024 press conference).
Fact-check/Inconsistency: Haaretz found "no basis in reality" for this, as it contradicts negotiation progress and escalates conflict without advancing stated aims.d82141c4cb4c
Additional Context and Criticisms
Hamas and Palestinian officials have accused Netanyahu of a "series of lies" in press conferences, e.g., blaming all issues on Hamas while ignoring Israeli actions.1d6f97 Reports also reveal early war orders to "bomb everything" without target verification, suggesting aims beyond precision.b6d7fc
Defenders argue mistranslations or media bias inflate accusations (e.g., claims of Gaza settlements were about Israeli border areas).ae757b542f09 However, the volume of fact-checks from diverse sources (including Israeli media like Haaretz and Times of Israel) suggests a pattern of inconsistencies.
In total, fact-checks identify at least 10-15 specific misleading claims related to Gaza aims across major speeches and interviews, but the true "count" could be higher depending on how one defines repeated or similar statements. For a non-partisan view, these discrepancies highlight tensions between stated objectives and on-ground realities, amid international criticism and domestic protests in Israel. If you're referring to a specific statement or period, provide more details for deeper analysis.
I guess when you're getting curb-stomped and there's sweet fuck-all you can do about it, whimpering "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" makes as much sense as anything else.
Maybe it's the lying that made the Holocaust guiltwashing wear off to the point it's going to take 3 generations for Israel to be trusted again?
So go ahead argue with AI. Disprove it's conclusions.
Last edited:
Beats hell outta arguing with natural stupidity, which is what I usually end up doing here.
The question of whether Palestinians have a right to a state is deeply complex, rooted in historical, legal, political, and moral dimensions. It’s debated globally, with perspectives shaped by competing narratives, international law, and practical realities. Below, I’ll outline the main arguments for and against, grounded in the available information, while striving for clarity and neutrality.
Arguments Supporting a Palestinian Right to a State
Self-Determination under International Law:
The principle of self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 1) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), asserts that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Palestinians argue they constitute a distinct people with a historical presence in the land, entitling them to statehood.
UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) explicitly recognizes the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty.
The 1993 Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the PLO, also implied mutual recognition, with the PLO recognizing Israel’s right to exist and Israel acknowledging the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, setting a framework for potential statehood.
Historical and Territorial Claims:
Palestinians trace their presence in the region to centuries before the establishment of Israel in 1948, viewing themselves as indigenous to the land. The 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) proposed a two-state solution, with an Arab state alongside a Jewish one, suggesting international recognition of a Palestinian state at the time, though it was rejected by Arab leaders.
The 1967 Six-Day War led to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, territories many Palestinians claim for a future state. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and various UN resolutions (e.g., 242, 338) call for Israeli withdrawal from these territories in exchange for peace, supporting a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
International Recognition:
As of 2025, 145 UN member states recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, based on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed a state within the 1967 borders (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem). The State of Palestine holds non-member observer status at the UN (Resolution 67/19, 2012), reinforcing its claim to statehood.
Proponents argue that denying Palestinians statehood contradicts global norms of sovereignty and self-governance, especially given widespread diplomatic recognition.
Moral and Humanitarian Arguments:
Advocates highlight the ongoing occupation, settlement expansion, and restrictions on Palestinian movement as violations of human rights, arguing that statehood is a necessary step to address these injustices. The UN and human rights organizations like Amnesty International have documented conditions in the occupied territories as amounting to apartheid in some analyses, fueling calls for Palestinian sovereignty as a remedy.
A state could provide Palestinians with autonomy, economic development, and protection from statelessness, addressing the refugee crisis stemming from the 1948 Nakba, when approximately 700,000 Palestinians were displaced.
Arguments Opposing a Palestinian Right to a State
Israeli Security and Historical Claims:
Opponents, including Otzma Yehudit and similar far-right Israeli parties, argue that a Palestinian state poses an existential threat to Israel’s security. They cite historical attacks, such as the Second Intifada (2000–2005) and Hamas’s actions (e.g., the October 7, 2023, attack), as evidence that a Palestinian state could become a base for terrorism.
Otzma Yehudit’s platform explicitly rejects any Palestinian state, advocating for Israeli sovereignty over all territories from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
They assert Jewish historical and biblical claims to the land, viewing Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as integral to Israel.
Figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich frame this as a divine right, prioritizing Jewish settlement and control over Palestinian claims.
Practical and Political Challenges:
Critics argue that Palestinian governance structures, divided between the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, lack the stability or unity to sustain a functional state. The PA’s corruption and Hamas’s designation as a terrorist organization by countries like the U.S. and EU raise doubts about viability.
The Oslo Accords’ failure to produce a final agreement, coupled with ongoing settlement expansion (over 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as of 2025), complicates the feasibility of a contiguous Palestinian state.
Far-right parties like Otzma Yehudit and the Religious Zionist Party push for annexation of these territories, rendering a two-state solution increasingly impractical.
Rejection of Palestinian National Identity:
Some opponents, particularly in the far-right spectrum, question the legitimacy of a distinct Palestinian national identity, claiming it emerged as a reaction to Zionism rather than as a historical reality. They argue that Palestinians are part of a broader Arab nation with no unique claim to the land.
Otzma Yehudit’s policies, such as proposing loyalty oaths or deportation of “disloyal” Arabs, reflect this view, prioritizing a Jewish ethno-state over Palestinian self-determination.
Legal and Sovereignty Disputes:
Israel disputes the legal basis for Palestinian statehood, arguing that the 1967 borders are not internationally binding and that Jordan’s prior control of the West Bank (1948–1967) was itself unrecognized by most states. They claim the territories are “disputed” rather than occupied, challenging the applicability of international laws like the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Far-right groups like Otzma Yehudit reject international frameworks like UN resolutions, viewing them as biased against Israel, and instead advocate for unilateral Israeli control.
Otzma Yehudit and Similar Parties’ Stance
Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, and allied parties like the Religious Zionist Party, unequivocally oppose Palestinian statehood. Their vision, as outlined in the previous response, is a “Greater Israel” encompassing all of the West Bank, with no room for a Palestinian state. They advocate:
Annexation: Full Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, prioritizing Jewish settlements.
Security Measures: Harsher policies against Palestinians, including relaxed military rules of engagement and potential expulsion of those deemed disloyal.
Jewish Supremacy: A state governed by Jewish law and identity, marginalizing non-Jewish populations. This stance directly contradicts the concept of Palestinian statehood, viewing it as incompatible with Israel’s security and Jewish national goals.
Broader Context and Implications
Two-State vs. One-State Debate:
The two-state solution, long endorsed by international bodies like the UN and supported by many governments, assumes a Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, far-right Israeli parties and growing settlement activity have eroded its feasibility, pushing some toward a one-state model—either a binational state (opposed by most Israelis) or an Israeli-controlled state with limited Palestinian rights (favored by Otzma Yehudit).
International Community: While many countries support Palestinian statehood, key powers like the U.S. have not fully recognized Palestine, often tying statehood to direct negotiations with Israel. This creates a stalemate, as far-right Israeli parties reject such talks.
Palestinian Perspective: Palestinians view statehood as a fundamental right, but internal divisions and ongoing conflict (e.g., the Gaza war since October 2023) weaken their position. Some advocate alternative solutions, like equal rights within a single state, though this is less common.
Conclusion
Whether Palestinians have a “right” to a state depends on the lens applied:
Proponents argue it’s a legal and moral necessity, grounded in self-determination and international support.
Opponents, including Otzma Yehudit and similar parties, reject it on security, historical, and ideological grounds, prioritizing exclusive Jewish control.
The debate remains unresolved, with practical barriers (settlements, political divisions) and ideological divides (e.g., Otzma Yehudit’s vision) complicating any path forward. If you’d like me to explore a specific aspect further—e.g., legal arguments, historical context, or current developments—let me know!
Arguments Supporting a Palestinian Right to a State
Self-Determination under International Law:
The principle of self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 1) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), asserts that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Palestinians argue they constitute a distinct people with a historical presence in the land, entitling them to statehood.
UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) explicitly recognizes the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty.
The 1993 Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the PLO, also implied mutual recognition, with the PLO recognizing Israel’s right to exist and Israel acknowledging the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, setting a framework for potential statehood.
Historical and Territorial Claims:
Palestinians trace their presence in the region to centuries before the establishment of Israel in 1948, viewing themselves as indigenous to the land. The 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) proposed a two-state solution, with an Arab state alongside a Jewish one, suggesting international recognition of a Palestinian state at the time, though it was rejected by Arab leaders.
The 1967 Six-Day War led to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, territories many Palestinians claim for a future state. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and various UN resolutions (e.g., 242, 338) call for Israeli withdrawal from these territories in exchange for peace, supporting a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
International Recognition:
As of 2025, 145 UN member states recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, based on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed a state within the 1967 borders (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem). The State of Palestine holds non-member observer status at the UN (Resolution 67/19, 2012), reinforcing its claim to statehood.
Proponents argue that denying Palestinians statehood contradicts global norms of sovereignty and self-governance, especially given widespread diplomatic recognition.
Moral and Humanitarian Arguments:
Advocates highlight the ongoing occupation, settlement expansion, and restrictions on Palestinian movement as violations of human rights, arguing that statehood is a necessary step to address these injustices. The UN and human rights organizations like Amnesty International have documented conditions in the occupied territories as amounting to apartheid in some analyses, fueling calls for Palestinian sovereignty as a remedy.
A state could provide Palestinians with autonomy, economic development, and protection from statelessness, addressing the refugee crisis stemming from the 1948 Nakba, when approximately 700,000 Palestinians were displaced.
Arguments Opposing a Palestinian Right to a State
Israeli Security and Historical Claims:
Opponents, including Otzma Yehudit and similar far-right Israeli parties, argue that a Palestinian state poses an existential threat to Israel’s security. They cite historical attacks, such as the Second Intifada (2000–2005) and Hamas’s actions (e.g., the October 7, 2023, attack), as evidence that a Palestinian state could become a base for terrorism.
Otzma Yehudit’s platform explicitly rejects any Palestinian state, advocating for Israeli sovereignty over all territories from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
They assert Jewish historical and biblical claims to the land, viewing Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as integral to Israel.
Figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich frame this as a divine right, prioritizing Jewish settlement and control over Palestinian claims.
Practical and Political Challenges:
Critics argue that Palestinian governance structures, divided between the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, lack the stability or unity to sustain a functional state. The PA’s corruption and Hamas’s designation as a terrorist organization by countries like the U.S. and EU raise doubts about viability.
The Oslo Accords’ failure to produce a final agreement, coupled with ongoing settlement expansion (over 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as of 2025), complicates the feasibility of a contiguous Palestinian state.
Far-right parties like Otzma Yehudit and the Religious Zionist Party push for annexation of these territories, rendering a two-state solution increasingly impractical.
Rejection of Palestinian National Identity:
Some opponents, particularly in the far-right spectrum, question the legitimacy of a distinct Palestinian national identity, claiming it emerged as a reaction to Zionism rather than as a historical reality. They argue that Palestinians are part of a broader Arab nation with no unique claim to the land.
Otzma Yehudit’s policies, such as proposing loyalty oaths or deportation of “disloyal” Arabs, reflect this view, prioritizing a Jewish ethno-state over Palestinian self-determination.
Legal and Sovereignty Disputes:
Israel disputes the legal basis for Palestinian statehood, arguing that the 1967 borders are not internationally binding and that Jordan’s prior control of the West Bank (1948–1967) was itself unrecognized by most states. They claim the territories are “disputed” rather than occupied, challenging the applicability of international laws like the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Far-right groups like Otzma Yehudit reject international frameworks like UN resolutions, viewing them as biased against Israel, and instead advocate for unilateral Israeli control.
Otzma Yehudit and Similar Parties’ Stance
Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, and allied parties like the Religious Zionist Party, unequivocally oppose Palestinian statehood. Their vision, as outlined in the previous response, is a “Greater Israel” encompassing all of the West Bank, with no room for a Palestinian state. They advocate:
Annexation: Full Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, prioritizing Jewish settlements.
Security Measures: Harsher policies against Palestinians, including relaxed military rules of engagement and potential expulsion of those deemed disloyal.
Jewish Supremacy: A state governed by Jewish law and identity, marginalizing non-Jewish populations. This stance directly contradicts the concept of Palestinian statehood, viewing it as incompatible with Israel’s security and Jewish national goals.
Broader Context and Implications
Two-State vs. One-State Debate:
The two-state solution, long endorsed by international bodies like the UN and supported by many governments, assumes a Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, far-right Israeli parties and growing settlement activity have eroded its feasibility, pushing some toward a one-state model—either a binational state (opposed by most Israelis) or an Israeli-controlled state with limited Palestinian rights (favored by Otzma Yehudit).
International Community: While many countries support Palestinian statehood, key powers like the U.S. have not fully recognized Palestine, often tying statehood to direct negotiations with Israel. This creates a stalemate, as far-right Israeli parties reject such talks.
Palestinian Perspective: Palestinians view statehood as a fundamental right, but internal divisions and ongoing conflict (e.g., the Gaza war since October 2023) weaken their position. Some advocate alternative solutions, like equal rights within a single state, though this is less common.
Conclusion
Whether Palestinians have a “right” to a state depends on the lens applied:
Proponents argue it’s a legal and moral necessity, grounded in self-determination and international support.
Opponents, including Otzma Yehudit and similar parties, reject it on security, historical, and ideological grounds, prioritizing exclusive Jewish control.
The debate remains unresolved, with practical barriers (settlements, political divisions) and ideological divides (e.g., Otzma Yehudit’s vision) complicating any path forward. If you’d like me to explore a specific aspect further—e.g., legal arguments, historical context, or current developments—let me know!
Similarities Between Otzma Yehudit (and Similar Parties) and the Taliban
While direct comparisons between Otzma Yehudit, its allies like the Religious Zionist Party, and the Taliban are often rhetorical or hyperbolic—used by critics to underscore extremism—they highlight shared traits in ideology and approach. Both represent forms of religious fundamentalism that prioritize ethnic/religious supremacy, use faith to justify power, and advocate for restrictive social policies. However, these parallels are not exact, as the contexts (a democratic state vs. a militant theocracy) differ significantly.
Below, I'll outline key similarities based on available analyses.
Religious Fundamentalism and Theocratic Aspirations:
Both groups seek to impose religious law as the basis for governance. The Taliban enforces a strict interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law), banning secular influences and mandating religious conformity.36af5b Otzma Yehudit and similar parties, rooted in Kahanism (a Jewish ultranationalist ideology), advocate for a Halachic (Jewish law-based) state, emphasizing Jewish religious identity over democratic pluralism.
They push for policies like increased funding for religious education, opposition to same-sex marriage, and immunity for soldiers based on religious justifications.e2125b42e629a427cf Critics argue this mirrors the Taliban's theocratic model, with figures like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich framing "Greater Israel" in messianic, divine-right terms.fff0b2062352
Public discourse on X often equates Kahanists (like Otzma) to groups like Hamas or the Taliban, calling them "Middle Eastern offshoots of Nazism" due to their push for a religious ethno-state.f518ec
Ethnic/Religious Supremacy and Anti-Minority Policies:
The Taliban promotes Pashtun-Islamic dominance, suppressing ethnic minorities (e.g., Hazaras), women, and non-Muslims through expulsion, violence, and denial of rights. Otzma Yehudit espouses Jewish supremacy, advocating for the expulsion or deportation of "disloyal" Arabs, mandatory loyalty oaths, and restricting rights for non-Jews deemed threats.4c9fb44194c99fa3e4
Ben-Gvir has stated that Jewish rights in the West Bank supersede Arab freedom of movement, echoing supremacist rhetoric condemned as "racist" by the U.S. and EU.2752a5b76f11 Similar parties like Religious Zionism support annexing territories and "population transfer" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing), akin to the Taliban's forced displacements.0992a9c4c4d6
Comparisons on X draw parallels to Hamas, noting shared support for "terrorism, ethnic cleansing, [and] a theocratic religious state."5d1ee797ce9af690f93dba1c
Use of Religion for Political Power and
Silencing Dissent:
The Taliban claims divine legitimacy, labeling opponents as "anti-Islam" to justify suppression. Otzma and allies use similar tactics, branding critics (e.g., Arab Israelis or leftists) as "anti-Jewish" or threats to Zionism, rallying support through religious nationalism.26c885b34333ca4eb9 Ben-Gvir's history includes inciting violence and supporting settler extremism, which critics liken to the Taliban's militant enforcement.d6c8d1d25f69609b48
In broader analogies (e.g., to Malaysian Islamist parties), similarities include "religious hardline influence" and "gender conservatism," though less extreme than the Taliban's bans on women's education.be1d04c741a8adb92ab2b003857b5ec27ebe4596b1
Support for or Incitement of Violence:
The Taliban uses terrorism and insurgency. While Otzma operates legally, its leaders have histories of supporting Jewish terrorism (e.g., Ben-Gvir's convictions for backing Kach, a terrorist group) and inciting settler violence against Palestinians.ef34ab145c8c634fd36bac9c33dfde This includes arming civilians and easing rules of engagement, drawing parallels to militant groups.
While direct comparisons between Otzma Yehudit, its allies like the Religious Zionist Party, and the Taliban are often rhetorical or hyperbolic—used by critics to underscore extremism—they highlight shared traits in ideology and approach. Both represent forms of religious fundamentalism that prioritize ethnic/religious supremacy, use faith to justify power, and advocate for restrictive social policies. However, these parallels are not exact, as the contexts (a democratic state vs. a militant theocracy) differ significantly.
Below, I'll outline key similarities based on available analyses.
Religious Fundamentalism and Theocratic Aspirations:
Both groups seek to impose religious law as the basis for governance. The Taliban enforces a strict interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law), banning secular influences and mandating religious conformity.36af5b Otzma Yehudit and similar parties, rooted in Kahanism (a Jewish ultranationalist ideology), advocate for a Halachic (Jewish law-based) state, emphasizing Jewish religious identity over democratic pluralism.
They push for policies like increased funding for religious education, opposition to same-sex marriage, and immunity for soldiers based on religious justifications.e2125b42e629a427cf Critics argue this mirrors the Taliban's theocratic model, with figures like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich framing "Greater Israel" in messianic, divine-right terms.fff0b2062352
Public discourse on X often equates Kahanists (like Otzma) to groups like Hamas or the Taliban, calling them "Middle Eastern offshoots of Nazism" due to their push for a religious ethno-state.f518ec
Ethnic/Religious Supremacy and Anti-Minority Policies:
The Taliban promotes Pashtun-Islamic dominance, suppressing ethnic minorities (e.g., Hazaras), women, and non-Muslims through expulsion, violence, and denial of rights. Otzma Yehudit espouses Jewish supremacy, advocating for the expulsion or deportation of "disloyal" Arabs, mandatory loyalty oaths, and restricting rights for non-Jews deemed threats.4c9fb44194c99fa3e4
Ben-Gvir has stated that Jewish rights in the West Bank supersede Arab freedom of movement, echoing supremacist rhetoric condemned as "racist" by the U.S. and EU.2752a5b76f11 Similar parties like Religious Zionism support annexing territories and "population transfer" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing), akin to the Taliban's forced displacements.0992a9c4c4d6
Comparisons on X draw parallels to Hamas, noting shared support for "terrorism, ethnic cleansing, [and] a theocratic religious state."5d1ee797ce9af690f93dba1c
Use of Religion for Political Power and
Silencing Dissent:
The Taliban claims divine legitimacy, labeling opponents as "anti-Islam" to justify suppression. Otzma and allies use similar tactics, branding critics (e.g., Arab Israelis or leftists) as "anti-Jewish" or threats to Zionism, rallying support through religious nationalism.26c885b34333ca4eb9 Ben-Gvir's history includes inciting violence and supporting settler extremism, which critics liken to the Taliban's militant enforcement.d6c8d1d25f69609b48
In broader analogies (e.g., to Malaysian Islamist parties), similarities include "religious hardline influence" and "gender conservatism," though less extreme than the Taliban's bans on women's education.be1d04c741a8adb92ab2b003857b5ec27ebe4596b1
Support for or Incitement of Violence:
The Taliban uses terrorism and insurgency. While Otzma operates legally, its leaders have histories of supporting Jewish terrorism (e.g., Ben-Gvir's convictions for backing Kach, a terrorist group) and inciting settler violence against Palestinians.ef34ab145c8c634fd36bac9c33dfde This includes arming civilians and easing rules of engagement, drawing parallels to militant groups.
Over 20 nations join EU, UN in opposing Israel’s illegal E1 settlement plan
Published On 22 Aug 2025
22 Aug 2025
The United Kingdom, Australia and Japan are among 21 countries that have condemned Israel’s plans to build a controversial illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, which they say renders a future two-state solution for Palestinians impossible.
“We condemn this decision and call for its immediate reversal in the strongest terms,” the 21 countries said in a joint statement on Thursday, describing Israel’s construction plans as a “violation of international law”.
The statement follows news this week that Israel will formally move forward with a settlement on a 12-square-kilometre (4.6-square-mile) tract of land east of Jerusalem known as “East 1” or “E1”.
Published On 22 Aug 2025
22 Aug 2025
The United Kingdom, Australia and Japan are among 21 countries that have condemned Israel’s plans to build a controversial illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank, which they say renders a future two-state solution for Palestinians impossible.
“We condemn this decision and call for its immediate reversal in the strongest terms,” the 21 countries said in a joint statement on Thursday, describing Israel’s construction plans as a “violation of international law”.
The statement follows news this week that Israel will formally move forward with a settlement on a 12-square-kilometre (4.6-square-mile) tract of land east of Jerusalem known as “East 1” or “E1”.