‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler

> it seems to me that there is an equal amount of people cheering the settlers as there are people against what they're doing

Speaking out of my ass here. But I’d guess most people don’t care. A minority cheers. A minority protests. Most go on with their lives.

the BBC is not unbiased in this (or anything), so I would ignore any "documentary" aired by them.

That is horrific and much worse than I thought it was.

Thank you for sharing this article. This was so well written.

Thank you, this is what I wanted to know:

"‘If you feed Gazans, they eventually eat you,’ the Israeli stand-up comedian Gil Kopatz posted. ‘It’s not genocide, it’s pesticide.’ According to a survey commissioned by Penn State, more than 80 per cent of Israeli Jews now support the expulsion of Gazans. Compassion for Palestinians is taboo except among a fringe of radical activists. When Ayman Odeh, a Palestinian member of the Knesset, posted a tweet celebrating a recent prisoner exchange, he was denounced for seeming to equate the predicament of jailed Palestinians and Jewish hostages: ‘Your presence pollutes the Knesset,’ a colleague told him."

Damn, that was a really good (if grim) article/read. Thank you for posting that.

The problem here though is what will ever give Israel confidence that Oct 7 will never happen again? We know that going after terrorists for years and killing them just creates more terrorists (Iraq, Afghanistan). The young children who do not end up dying of starvation will be men in 20 years, still in Gaza with no options to leave and resent Israel who they will consider to be effectively their jailer. The situation is just untenable. I don't like to think that the result of Oct 7 is a more open Gaza but I don't really know what other options Israel has.

Hamas obviously started this but Israel won the war a long time ago. The world deserves an end. The longer it goes on the more Hamas will actually have achieved some kind of lasting positive image of Gaza which is rooted in their actions on Oct 7th and that would be an incredibly bad outcome for all.

>the way Israel is currently/always being portrayed

Israeli soldiers, politicians, and many civilians are portraying themselves this way. Soldiers post videos sniping a child in the head calling it a "legendary video", politicians say Palestinians should starve, civilians block aid trucks.

Do you resent the way they are portrayed or do you mean you resent what a lot of Israelis are doing?

Maybe not locking people up in the world's largest open-air prison for an entire generation and constantly kicking their teeth in would help. Just a thought.

"Give me liberty or give me death" as you say in America, I believe. Or does that only apply to the white man?

This happened in the occupied West Bank. What would you like Hamas to do differently there?

> there is no "just stop fighting" option that leaves Israel with a high confidence that another Oct 7 won't happen in the next few years

How can the same country that prides itself in their intel/spying prowess, and has demonstrated sophisticated capabilities and attacks, claim it will be helpless if they don't absolutely disappear another group of people and take their territory?

I seriously doubt the Oct 7 attack caught Israel by surprise, given the scale of it and the level of compromise Israel had on Hamas. Given the disproportionate response Israel was prepared to employ, it was a perfect casus belli to appropriate even more land, as it is happening right now.

Oct 7 happened as a result of the Israeli occupation. If there’s occupation, there will be resistance.

Instead Israel could become a democratic state with equal rights for all citizens.

Which context has been stripped from the narrative in your opinion? Maybe you’ll say Israel is the original Jewish homeland and therefore the occupation is justified?

>see the key problem as people removing context

ok when is it contextually ok to starve children?

That might have something to do with the way Israel currently/always has behaved. King David Hotel, Irgun, electing the leader of Irgun, the whole thing is stolen land, etc.

Do you also blame Ukraine for fighting back?

Do you perhaps have sources of those claims at hand?

The word “terrorist” is strictly a political designation, one that allows for dehumanizing and condemning one’s enemies. Israel’s pager attack on Lebanon has all of the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, but the west won’t call it as it is because it’s inconvenient. It was inconvenient to acknowledge that Israel is conducting a full on genocide, so not until very recently did major western news orgs start using the dreaded G word.

I guess if they are viewed as an occupying force, it’s much less unprecedented. In fact it’s exactly how you’d expect an occupation to act.

No, it's been the norm for Israel since its inception. To mention just a couple of examples, ben-Gurion was a founder of Haganah, of which Rabin, infamous for his "break-their-bones" policy, was a member.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-their-bones_policy

It's not unprecedented.

All over the Balkans of the 90s, right wing nationalist governments aligned themselves with paramilitaries murdering undesirables.

Going back further, fascist movements of the first half of the 20th century used similar tactics.

we're precedenting it in the united states. our government is deeply ideologically aligned with the people committing the vast majority of domestic terrorism in this country.

[dead]

There is a lot of precedent for one tribe eliminating another tribe to gain land. The only way a conflict over land ends is if one side wins.

Yes, much more akin to loyalist paramilitaries backed by the British army in Northern Ireland, only on an industrial scale.

They lifted the sanctions on him and put sanctions on Francesca Albanese.

[flagged]

[flagged]

I agree there is a significant number opposed, given the protest sizes in Tel Aviv, but it is far from the majority.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majority-israelis-support...

Given Israeli education, support for settlers, the immigration policy which allows anyone with Jewish heritage to claim land there (regardless of any connection to the area, and of any outstanding arrest warrants) and Israelis using their kids to stop aid trucks and so on, there's a lot needed to show the majority what is actually humane and acceptable.

They may oppose the current arrangement of the government but they don't disagree with the occupation and ethnic cleansing.

> Eurasia Poll: 82% of Israelis want to expel Palestinians from Gaza; 47% want to kill every man, woman, child

https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/05/30/poll-israelis-exp...

It's interesting to contrast comments like this in this thread, with the amount of hatred and abuse heaped upon Russians on the day of Russia's invasion - not just the Russian state, but a big chunk of comments that made it clear that they held all Russians responsible for it and would like to see their lives destroyed. And had relatively little pushback against them.

I agree with the sentiment of your second paragraph, but I wish that thought applied in general, and not just to some special case countries. Especially considering the widely differing levels of democratic power people have in these different countries.

Netanyahu is the longest serving Israeli prime minister in history serving a combined 17 years. And he is tipped to win again next election. He very much embodies the will of the Israeli public.

If you listen to their “liberal opposition” leaders like the likes of Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz they sound just as unhinged as Netanyahu himself [1]

Every poll conducted on Israeli public opinion on the conflict would make have made Nazi officials blush. Majority of Israelis support ethnically cleansing Palestinians from Gaza [2].

Seeing the facts as they are is not being “emotionally blinded”. When genocidal psychopaths scream at the top of their lungs they want to commit genocide and actively work towards that goal, with the results right in front of our eyes, we compelled to believe them.

[1] https://x.com/ghostofbph/status/1948720978378309847?s=46

[2] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-03/ty-article/.p...

The Palestinians who are starving aren't the ones who get to decide when hostages are released.

what kind of sick, twisted, inhuman comment is that?

Your middle two points apply to the Palestinians more than the Israelis IMHO.

Because i don't think HN should be discussing politics I must be getting paid by Israel. Really?

> more attention than Burma, West Africa, Ethiopia and Sudan

Our tax dollars (as an american) are bankrolling these settler animal's bloodlust. can't say the same for the other examples you provided.

While we should absolutely be covering on-going civil wars and genocides across the world -- I personally listen to French news sources in order to understand what's going on across Africa -- the fact is that the US has provided Israel with over $300 billion since it's founding. For Sudan, that number is somewhere around $5 billion. So many of us here in the US are rightfully watching and questioning why our taxes are funding a genocide.

And yet far less attention than those in Ukraine got even at a time when the destruction and killing there was less than 1% of what Palestine has gone through. Within one week of the first attack, Ukraine got more mainstream support, on-air time, and geopolitical response, than Palestine got over a year of suffering through civilian murders and other clear war crimes.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> The introduction of nationalist ideologies (including Zionism and Arab nationalism), the impact of colonial policies, and the establishment of modern nation-states altered the status and dynamics of Jewish communities in Muslim-majority countries.

From your source.

It's important to note that in a place like Algeria the French colonists granted Jewish populations citizenship to France, yet denied it to the Arab and Berber populations. [1] This fractured relations between the Sephardic population and the rest of the local population, which is exactly what the French wanted.

I'm not going to say relations were perfect before, or deny that Jewish populations weren't second class citizens, but there was a long history of being neighbors and having cities like Constantine be a place of refuge after the Spanish expulsion of Jews from Andalusia. I mean, in places like Mogador in Morocco, Jewish populations were explicitly invited by the king to settle and set up trading businesses [2].

The founding of Israel completely changed this and fractured relations that went back hundreds, if not thousands, of years. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cr%C3%A9mieux_Decree

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essaouira#Jewish_presence

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghrebi_Jews

Judging by the British Raj, choosing to inhabit a former British colony probably wasn't a super informed decision. If you attended history class, you know what happened the moment Britian left.

Violence begets violence, if Israeli settlers want to fight to displace other people then they will die in that process. Thankfully for Jews, there are other states they can choose to inhabit that are both secular and respect international law. These are, statistically, safer places for Jewish individuals to live than a state that instructs their army on how to commit fratricide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive

Speaking out about this issue in any way that smells "pro-Palestinian" has cost people their jobs, and sometimes even their residency and "freedom" in western countries, and is accompanied by smears and accusations of anti-Semitism against people who clearly are not.

I've lost friends of 15 years for remarking on my horror about bombings and civilian deaths. Nothing more.

I can't even begin to understand a mentality which cannot see the absolute asymmetry of power at work here.

The daily protests happen because they're necessary. And they're clearly not enough.

not sure what would other side protest for? faster genocide?

could it be because advocating for the live-streamed genocide is not popular as one might think ?

Why would the other side need to protest?

I wonder why Israel is attacking Lebanon. It's a real mystery.

Why should Israel allow themselves to be attacked by Syria and Lebanon? Did you miss what Lebanon did to people in northern Israel? Seems like you think Jews should just sacrifice themselves for some reason.

Syria and Lebanon declared war in the distant past on Israel and there are no peace treaties that have been signed in that time. Israel is not the aggressor here. They would happily sign peace treaties with their neighbors, but this is not what their neighbors want.

What are they currently doing then? They're already supporting the "settlers" so territorial expansion is already in progress. They haven't expanded beyond that right now, but judging by their current actions, it seems to me they're already on that route, and only small parts of the world is currently trying to stop them.

Israel has been on that route for decades now.

Nah, the world would let it happen.

Or more accurately, the world would let the US let it happen. And the US would probably fund it.

And the world would feel so, so sorry as they paved over the mass graves and built AI data centers and luxury hotels in what used to be Gaza.

>You could also say that "two-state solution" has been tried in 1948, but (for whatever reasons) didn't work out.

The Arab world overwhelmingly rejected the UN Partition Plan in principle, which led directly to the 1948 Palestine war and the first Arab-Israeli war. Likewise, the signing of the Oslo Accords (and the rejection of those accords by Hamas, PIJ and other factions within the PLO) led directly to the Second Intifada. Most of the Arab world has now conceded that Israel isn't going anywhere and huge steps have been made in normalising Arab-Israeli relations, but Palestinian politics is still dominated by a fundamentally futile anti-Zionist absolutism.

A credible option of full statehood and international recognition has been on the table for nearly eighty years, but Palestinians have consistently failed to establish a workable consensus on taking up that option. The PLO's intransigence has alienated most of their allies in the region, primarily because they instigated civil wars in both Jordan (1970) and Lebanon (1975).

A one-state solution is no solution at all while there remain extremists on both sides who are simply unwilling to coexist; unless Israel can reign in the religious right and the Palestinians can establish a political consensus in favour of coexistence, it's a straightforward path to war. There's no "poetic justice" in making people who hate each other live together, just an inevitable perpetuation of bloodshed.

The political debates about land rights are intractably complex, but the fundamental realpolitik question is about how much the Palestinians are willing to suffer for the principle of "from the river to the sea". Israel is militarily dominant and is likely to remain so regardless of how much international pressure is brought to bear. In simple practical terms, the ball is in the Palestinian court and it is for them to decide whether to seriously engage in a two (or three) state solution with international support, or whether to continue pursuing an unwinnable conflict. A post-Netanyahu Israel is highly likely to support a serious two-state solution, but simply isn't going to accept a one-state solution; even if you believe a one-state solution to be the only just outcome, it isn't a workable outcome.

At the moment, the two sides only agree on wishing the other dead. So even in the ideal world it is a very remote possibility.

> Is two-state solution possible?

More than a one-state solution.

Would it be nice if people could get along and not require militarised borders to keep them from killing each other? Sure. This was essentially the colonial assumption when the Middle East (and Africa’s) modern borders were drawn—that local preferences could be overcome by force of will.

In reality, where you draw borders on a map matters less than the people on the ground’s identities and guns.

A one-state solution will just result in a civil war, followed swiftly by an actual genocide (i.e. 5,000,000+ dead).

Besides, Israel sees themselves as having the right to bomb and invade their neighboring states at will. A Palestinian state would be Lebanon x 1000, never ending war and no respect for borders. The real problem is Europe and America's funding and insane levels of political and diplomatic support for Israel, to the point that we are willing to gut international law and even our own citizen's civil rights to prop up the zionist invasion.

[flagged]

> Gazans move to other Arab-world countries

This is a problem for the neighbouring countries, isn't it? They don't want to deal with a bunch of new people any more than any other country does.

> let Israel annexate Gaza

This is just admitting that might makes right

> and then imposing strict border controls... severly sanctioned

You would need people to actually believe this

Even so, this plan does not address the fact that both parties really really want to live on the same land. You might as well ask the Israelis why they aren't content to resettle some other place, they wouldn't accept it anymore than the Palestinians would.

Why not the reverse? Israel is clearly the aggressor here, not Palestine. The only path to sustainable peace is to do to Israel what the world did to Germany after WW2: a complete destruction of the fascist Tel Aviv regime and the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials for top Israeli officials.

Actually, there are studies that show (by looking at past conflicts) that peacekeeping does work.

Peacekeeping worked in the former Yugoslavia and many other places. It's more like these days it seems like the international aspect is lacking; the consensus of the so-called world community has really been in shambles for the past two decades. I think the one time where unanimous cooperation existed was against Somali piracy in the early '10s.

> international peacekeepers don’t work.

What’s the solution then? We keep wringing our hands and saying it’s impossible?