What stands out to me here is the pipeline. Israel has built an unusually tight feedback loop between military intelligence, private startups, and global markets. When that ecosystem scales internationally, it’s fair to ask whether partners are buying technology or importing unilateral leverage that only benefits Israel here.
They are usually incompetent on things that are not important, like keeping infrastructure from falling off the cliff, maintaining a good economy, or in general serving the people. They are pretty competent on things that are really important, like hacking into people's phones, killing other people.
After all you have to admit that getting killed is more serious than getting starved...
"The intelligence agency, called the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) discovered that some calls on Air Force One were unencrypted and it was able to tap into radio frequencies that were used for those calls, according to the book, "
No hacking or deployment of listening devices, just passive listening. Unless you have other sources?
EU member states do and often with collaboration with Israeli vendors - especially in the CEE and Southern Europe. It even became an ongoing scandal in the EU [0][1].
Northern and Western European states tend to use American products, but the difference between "American", "Israeli", "Czech", and "Indian" blurs because of how much overlap the industry has transnationally.
Italy, Czechia, Poland, and Netherlands all have significant domestic capacity in the space as well, but a large portion of it is via American and Israeli tech.
EU law enforcement agencies regularly buy this kind of software, even if illegal!
The Italian Carabinieri bought Paragon even though they can't legally use it, because mass surveillance is obviously illegal and against our constitution.
Don't get me wrong, I get why they want to and it is probably a justified security concern, but it's also things like that which will probably cause Europe's economy to continue to stagnate while the US's will probably continue to soar even with Trump (and perhaps, later, Vance) completely destroying our international reputation and credibility and our most important political and scientific institutions.
The fact that the US can continue to economically do so well relative to others despite currently being run by some of the stupidest and most abhorrent people possible is... sad.
Europe could be more competitive but then they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Just in the past week they're meddling with the infinite scroll feature and then the unrealized taxes in the Netherlands. Why would a tech company wanna operate in such an environment?
Obviously one cannot simply accept any potential societal trade-off in favor of benefitting the economy, but going too far in the opposite direction eventually manifests as worse living standards for the average person, which is not beneficial to society.
"How does banning unhealthy food make society worse?" "How does banning unhealthy habits make society worse?" "How does banning harmful/hateful speech make society worse?" "How does banning things and, as a result, our economy stagnating, make society worse?"
Pam Bondi suggested that it would be impossible to prosecute the pedophiles, because the economy would collapse. To which many people reacted: then let it collapse. You remind me of Pam Bondi.
Except Bondi was wrong and I am right, and also letting the economy collapse actually would be really, really bad and saying things like that is something only children and economically illiterate people do.
Also, most of the things I listed in my previous post had absolutely nothing to do with the economy. It's just that it's unethical and tyrannical for the government to dictate people's behavior in this way. "How is it unhealthy for the government to ban alcohol?" These statements would apply whether in a socialistic or fully neoliberal country.
> The fact that the US can continue to economically do so well relative to others despite currently being run by some of the stupidest and most abhorrent people possible is... sad.
It's not sad, it's strong evidence (I hesitate to call it proof, but...) that a federated model of governance with limited regulation is the most resilient and successful form of government.
All the EU states need to do is learn that regulation is not the solution to every theoretical problem any bureaucrat can imagine, and they too can experience meaningful economic growth.
I agree that if you want to pursue economic growth laissez-faire is possibly the best course of action, but economic growth isn't the only metric worth pursuing.
I have no idea where you got that idea from. If anything the EU has been focused way too much on the economy, hoping trade and economic growth will solve all problems.
1. Watching the standard of living in the US outpace the EU for decades and comparing their economic systems.
2. Basic common sense tells you that you need resources in order to fund a welfare state, a long list of positive human rights, and all the other things that the EU states want to do. Money buys resources, especially when you don't have direct access to them (which is the case for most EU states).
Probably one of these scissor statements where economic leftists think that obviously the problem is focusing way too much on [X] and the others saying the problem is focusing far too little on [X].
To some extent yes, but the issue the leftists have in this case is that X = money (or the equivalent in resources) which is absolutely required in large quantities to enact their political agenda.
You'd think so, but paying all the people who sit around and think of things to regulate, the people who actually write the regulations, the people who enact the regulations, and the people who enforce the regulations is not a trivial cost, especially at the scale that the EU wants to regulate things.
Also, the actual political agenda is based around a welfare state, which absolutely costs money to maintain.
I like infinite scrolling. Probably most users like it. My country's government banning apps from letting me infinite scroll in them sounds very paternalistic and silly.
I make apps for myself above all else. I always add infinite scrolling support to all my apps. It's just a better and smoother experience than pagination.
It is probably in their blood because as someone surrounded by enemies you gotta be pragmatic and on your toe all the time. No wonder they are pretty good at intelligence collection. One of my previous bosses told me that people with highest scores join the intelligence staffs. Not sure if it is true, though.
Surrounded by enemies of their own creation. It’s a beautiful cycle of aggression and self-victimization; a true ouroboros.
On the intelligence front, Mossad does a wonderful job performing extra-judicial killings using the dirtiest tricks you could think of. They’re also very good partners: almost every counter-intelligence outfit sings their praises.
Step 1: Get 6 million of you systematically eradicated in Europe and hundreds of thousands more booted from their homes in the Middle East for "reasons".
Step 2: Build yourself a country so no one can throw you out again.
Step 3: Get attacked by the countries who threw you out for "reasons".
Step 4: Get accused of "aggression".
People's continued downplay and revisionism of Jewish and Israeli history is truly something to behold.
Step 1: A Holocaust perpetrated by Germany, not Palestine.
Step 2: Build a country out of Lego- I mean, gradually settle an existing, populated area of the Levant - Palestine - and then have daddy Britain and later big daddy USA forcibly carve out a chunk of the land without input from the natives. And no, it was not a UN partition plan because most of the world was still colonized at the time.
Step 3: Take advantage of the obvious discontent with this move by the natives and activate Plan Dalet to take even more of the land. After all, the land granted by the partition plan is not enough.
Step 4: War starts with neighboring countries, partly to disrupt the ethnic cleansing campaign against a mostly defenseless population, but also to satisfy their own expansionist aims (esp. Transjordan).
> War starts with neighboring countries, partly to disrupt the ethnic cleansing campaign against a mostly defenseless population
Did you made this all up?
There is zero evidence that the war started because the Jews were ethnically cleansing “defenseless population”. It is enough to go to the library and read newspapers from the time where Arabs openly stated that they do no accept Jewish state for the sake of it being Jewish.
The people who fled Europe or forced out of the Middle East purchased empty lands, dried marshes, planted forests, installed infrastructure, sown fields, built cities and created a democracy to govern themselves. Incidentally, some purchased lands had squatters from Syria, Jordan, Arabia, etc., who lived on lands they did not own. Bye bye and boo hoo.
Seven different armies invaded Israel on its day of foundation. Seven armies got wrecked. Entire countries with billions of people keep crying about it, going so far as making the destruction of Israel an official goal, in some countries even actual laws! No conspiracy theories, no "Plan Dalet" and other bullshit your Hamas friends told you about, their real, actual goals stated right in your face.
This is frankly, completely ahistorical. The British famously backed the Palestinians in the 1948 war (only barely, they mostly didn't care, but still did back them) and didn't like the idea of Israel so much so that they withdrew from the UN committee over it. Palestinians famously collaborated with Hitler as well. The USA only started being allied with Israel in the late 60s.
> And no, it was not a UN partition plan because most of the world was still colonized at the time.
And I can't even begin to fathom what this means.
As you noted in an another comment, Plan Dalet was corroborated by Israeli historians. Which is false. It was corroborated by one Israeli historian, who retracted his findings after finding out his source for the writings of Ben-Gurion were edited posthumously.
And "war starts" is a very nice and PG way to phrase "attempted to genocide Jews".
Yes, it is completely ahistorical - if you buy in to the blessed Zionist narrative, that is.
> The British famously backed the Palestinians
No, the British backed the Jordanians, not the Palestinians. Jordan had its own goals as I alluded to elsewhere. I would recommend reading a bit further on the subtleties and limits to that backing, as well as the strategic reasons for said backing. But I wasn’t talking about the war at all here.
They withdrew because they did not know how to balance the two sides. It was a hot potato, so they threw into the lap of the US.
> And I can't even begin to fathom what this means.
How many seats were there at the UNGA at the time? And how many of those seats belonged to countries who could make sovereign decisions without fear of repercussion from the newly emerged world powers? Keep in mind that WWII ended less than two years ago at this point.
> As you noted in an another comment, Plan Dalet was corroborated by Israeli historians. Which is false.
So there was no ethnic cleansing at all? I suppose 700k or so Palestinians just oopsied their way out of their homes and villages.
> And "war starts" is a very nice and PG way to phrase "attempted to genocide Jews".
> No, the British backed the Jordanians, not the Palestinians.
What is the difference between Jordanians and Palestinians given that the line that separates them is drown by the Brits?
> So there was no ethnic cleansing at all? I suppose 700k or so Palestinians just oopsied their way out of their homes and villages.
So they all left because Israel kicked them all out? What about the interviews and news articles from the time where Arabs themselves said that Jordan Army asked them to leave for the duration of the fights?
Zionism existed since the late 19th century. It cannot be considered solely a response to the Holocaust. It was an outgrowth of the many nationalist movements that were occurring in Europe at the time, and even as far back as the 1920s the consensus was that the establishment of a Jewish state required a Jewish majority. This is clearly evident in the writings of people like Jabrotinsky and Herzl himself. I don't think any native population would take kindly to what exactly this implied.
You're a little off on the history. Zionism as a political movement (as opposed to the cultural idea which has existed for 3000 or so years) dates back to the late 18th century, as one of the responses to both antisemitism and the emerging nationalist ideas in Europe. The deciding philosophy in this case is the idea that antisemitism cannot be fought, that it is a universal constant of sorts. This was originally a fringe left-wing idea, with the response being to stop being Jews (the Reform branch was borne out of this and is the reason many Jews, including me, still dislike it, even if it is a bit unfair). After the Holocaust, however, this idea transformed from a left-wing one to a right-wing one, where the solution became to take up arms and defend ourselves from those who would wish to kill us. I don't know about Jabrotinsky but your claim on Herzl is very hotly debated[0]. Not that I imagine many Arabs can read German. The claim also heavily erases Jewish presence in the Levant.
Every day since its first day as a state. There are several countries with billions of people whose stated, official objective is the destruction of Israel. Iran has giant countdown clocks and advertisements for the destruction of Israel. They have laws against peace with Israel. The Houthis literally have "Death to Israel" (and America) on their flag.
No, Israel has never been seriously threatened with elimination. Even in 1948, they were militarily superior and more organized than all of their neighbors. They in fact proved this in 1967.
But they sure love to claim that they were at the cusp of elimination at various points - again, the self-victimization complex in action :)
I don't disagree with you, but this is the reality already and I don't see how they can get out of it. I wouldn't hope for any long-term peace between IL and surrounding country without IL holding a very big stick which the US gives to them.
I think actually they are in a bit of panic mode because the US might want to get out from the ME and focus on China. They want a guarantee that Iran won't be able to come on its foot again in at least 10 years. That's all my guess, though.
I think also everyone needs to understand that Israel are a wedge in the operations of rival Islamic terrorist factions. If they went poof and ceased to exist suddenly then it'd switch straight to Darfur mode out there. It wouldn't suddenly be kumbaya and holding hands.
> I don't disagree with you, but this is the reality already and I don't see how they can get out of it.
Maybe by starting to behave as if the Palestinian population that live on the territory they control have equal rights? Like stopping West Bank colonization projects?
2006 Gaza was left to their own independent rule. Shortly after that Hamas killed the PLO, assumed control, and started fire rockets into Israel. And you’re saying that we need to try that again with the West Bank?
That’s not what happened. You (unintentionally I am sure) glossed over the elections being overruled by the US and Israel, the attempted coup by Fatah in Gaza, and the subsequent blockade.
The blockade started after the rockets. And how can US and Israel overrule elections in Gaza? Fatah wanted a coup because they lost to Hamas. That’s why there’s no election in the West Bank.
On rocket attacks, Hamas was sticking relatively well to the ceasefire (again, talking about Hamas, not other groups). The blockade was tightened by Israel post-takeover, which then lead to a resumption of rocket attacks.
This is not an argument for illegal occupation and expansion into West Bank. Israel should follow international law and agreements they themselves signed.
At least that'd improve the chance of having peaceful neighbours, instead of ones who'll listen to any envoy from Iran saying that bombing Israel is the best solution for living in peace.
It really wouldn't make a difference. A country that is already so radicalized that it thinks bombing Israel is the best solution for living in peace would not change its mind for the Palestinians.
You’re either missing my point or deflecting. Let me expand one last time.
Israel claims to be threatened by its neighbors. Israel claims to want peace with countries in the region. Neighboring countries have repeatedly stated that a precondition to normalization is a just solution for Palestinians. But Israel does not want a just solution.
In other words, the problem is entirely self-inflicted. Israel wants peace, but without making any concessions on the issue of Palestine. So instead it pursues a system of “peace through violence” - just like it does in the West Bank and Gaza.
This is bullshit. Between 1948 and 1967 the entire West Bank and Gaza were under control of neighbouring Arab countries. They could’ve set up a Palestinian state within “the 1967 borders”, but nobody did. Instead they went to war to try and take the rest.
Besides, Israel has since made peace with Egypt and Jordan.
Okay, and? Do you think the fact that neighbors having their own expansionist ambitions is somehow a “gotcha”? And given the whole Greater Israel plan, do you seriously think that Israel would have even allowed this to happen?
Now, back to the present day. Palestinians live under a system of occupation and blockade and recently genocide. This is not a just situation. It is also not sustainable without continued repression and use of force. There is no way that Israel will be welcomed into the wider ME under this regime.
You apparently need it, given your illogical and inaccurate statements in this thread, but I won't hold my breath while waiting for you to accept that.
Feel free to respond where you disagree for the benefit of those reading the thread.
Btw, linking to a wiki page does not reflect any knowledge on your part. By not engaging with your own words, it is fair to default to assuming that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Others have already done so since my initial comment and your response was either "nah" or to disengage, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who is clearly personally invested in a very specific narrative.
Both. Jews are indigenous to the land, and you also had Jewish communities living all over the middle east throughout history untill they moved to Israel.
You might as well have cited 4chan with that link but whatever. No, it isn't known. What is known is that he had contacts who in turn had contacts in Mossad. And seeing both Epstein's vocal dislike of Israel and his vocal like for some of Israel's enemies (Russia in particular), I seriously doubt those contacts went any deeper than that.
Paragon co-founded by former Unit-8200 commander Ehud Schneorson and former Israeli Prime-minister and defence-chief, Ehud Barak who tapped his long-time friend Jeffrey Epstein (a wealthy American financier and eccentric) to find him clients for his ventures in the US and across the world. That certainly is some tight-integration!
The thing is everyone goes into the IDF. The smart ones get put into unit 8200 where they hone their persistent, iterative, troubleshooting skills. Then their service is over they leave and they've basically been trained in innovation and leadership.
Then they go about solving problems. Some of those problems are people dont have a good trustworthy pornsite. Some of them are their buddies that stayed in the military have a military related or adjacent problem.
They're just too busy repackaging the same spying tech on different channels and then selling that for billions in the US stock market. Also knowing that US regulators won't say a single word, because how could they ever say something bad about these companies... It must be a very good business.
You should look at Israel deal for the F-35. They got the only F-35 unlocked and non dependent on the US software lock. They were never part of the development program like Norway, Denmark, Italy or the Netherlands so did not have to bear those costs. Norway, Denmark, Italy or the Netherlands, still had to pay for their F-35...
Israel paid 2.3 Billion for their F-35, but the US committed to buy 4 Billion from Israel defense firms, so concluding with a net positive of +1.25 Billion for Israel economy....all at the cost to the US tax payer. :-)
France and Israel have been collaborating on defense technology for decades - it was France that helped Israel become a nuclear power [0]. There are similar collaborations with Czechia [1], Estonia [2], Lithuania [3], Romania [4] and Germany [5].
Additionally, Israel has a defense pact with Greece and Cyprus to protect them against Turkish aggression [6], which is more than what other EU states are providing to Greece and Cyprus.
This is why Israel is a critical part of the EU's multilateral defense fabric - Eastern Mediterranean and CEE EU member states are already close partners with Israel.
1.) not all cee countries are pro-israel. Especially Poland as the biggest country there is rather anti - Israel.
2.) Most European countries and almost eu countries are part of NATO. Thus Greece is protected by Article 5. In addition there is Article 42 from the EU. In a.potential Cyprus - Greece - Turkey Eu has more to offer than Israel military wise.
Enough are though, and the EU is robust enough to support dissent between states. The Baltics will gladly take anyone's support against Russian aggression.
> Thus Greece is protected by Article 5
Cyprus is not protected by Article 5 as it's NATO assension has been blocked by Turkiye. And Greece has been Cyprus' defense guaranteer since independence in 1960. Any attack on Cyprus is an attack on Greece as both Greeks and Cypriots are the same ethnic group and deeply tied economically, socially, and militarily.
> In addition there is Article 42 from the EU. In a.potential Cyprus - Greece - Turkey Eu has more to offer than Israel military wise
Cyprus and Greece cannot count on Article 42 as Turkiye has strong defense and commercial ties with Spain [0] and Italy [1], which leads to a timid EU response as was seen in 2024 during the Greek-Turkish naval standoff [5].
As such, Greece+Cyprus have turned to trilateral treaties with France [2], Israel, and India [3][4] as a fallback.
This is why Israel has been included in EU defense deals and partnerships - it provides a large portion of the EU defense cover while allowing the EU to bypass inter-EU conflicts.
If people are concerned about foreign interference, it’s worth noting that Twitter’s ID-verification pipeline runs through AU10TIX. The company is founded in Tel aviv by an ex Israeli military person and maintains core operations and engineering in Israel, which is where part of the verification flow is processed. That creates a direct data-flow path for sensitive government IDs outside the U.S. for no real reason, and most users have no idea this is happening. I do not want a foreign government to have access to the address of all American verified users on Twitter.
You'll need to be more specific. Every adult in Israel is ex-military since they have a mandatory draft. The exception is draft dodgers. FWIW, notably orthodox Jews are among those.
Mandatory service isn’t the point. The issue is that a foreign jurisdiction with a tight intelligence industry overlap is processing U.S. government IDs. especially for something like X/Twitter where verified accounts include journalists, activists, and government officials. There are many alternatives located in the US.
If that isn't the point, why mention they are ex-military? Mentioning they're located in Israel ('foreign jurisdiction with a tight intelligence industry overlap') would suffice.
aaaand this is why you should be extremely wary if a company is asking you to upload sensitive information. Even if it's a big company.
I tried to tour an apartment complex, and they required me to use an online application for 'id verification. For a tour. A tour!
I'm sorry, but you do not require my social security number and pictures of my driver's license for me to use my eyeballs to see an apartment unit. What am I gonna do? Drive away with the apartment?
What’s striking is how often these ‘small’ surveillance tech stories trace back to the same state-aligned ecosystem. When Israel does it, it’s treated as a complex security issue. When another ‘bad’ country does the same thing, we immediately call it espionage. And almost on cue, the discussion drifts anywhere except the uncomfortable fact that it’s the same ecosystem from the same country showing up again.
it’s a tough infosec situation because the tel aviv-haifa corridor in israel has an enormous amount of computer science R&D going on that gives US companies a competitive advantage.
for example, annapurna labs in haifa develops the technology behind AWS’s nitro cards, which run the hypervisor, block storage, and networking in every EC2 server.
Is it though? US and EU telecom companies pulled the plug on Huawei products, which were deeply integrated in all of their setup, as soon as someone said they may be spying or remote disabled by China. It was expensive, sure, but they pulled the plug. I don't recall any concrete evidence of backdoors etc to be found, but trust was gone.
And that's the difference I think; US and Israel have high trust, they are aligned in ideals and strategy and the like.
Fair enough. I guess it's fine to be spied on to make sure US companies have that competitive advantage you mention. As its all in a good cause, I'll take the Samsung phone!
To be fair, us over in Europe have been uncomfortable for a while due to the US surveillance apparatus having total dominion over the underlying systems that run our countries.
So, its a little bit tone deaf to hear these complaints from Americans honestly.
We’re told that we’re uncompetitive (yet when rising startups happen they’re bought out before being too large)- we’re told that we shouldn’t run on anything except US SaaS and US cloud providers.
I’m not saying that you specifically make these arguments, but the zeitgeist on HN definitely centres on this notion.
So, please forgive me for not taking this as seriously as you’d like me to.
I think USA tech hegemony is perfectly analogous to this Israeli tech dilemma. As a dual American and EU (Irish) citizen, should my company strive to categorically avoid Intel and Nvidia technologies for national security reasons? I think there is a strong argument for tech nationalism but there is still a hegemonic dilemma.
The main problem, even if you would avoid Intel and NVidia, is that during the last decades we confortably let OS and programing languages driven by US companies take over.
So you might go with ARM, RISC V, but still have to make use of an OS and programming stack with strong ties to US based companies, even if open source.
I mean, it's literally the same thing that happens when past genocides are bad, but when they happen today from an ally of the west... "it's complicated". Except this time happens on the technological side rather than the humanitarian one
Everything on your list involved the sale of a product, by this logic China would be our closest ally (actually I wish our leaders were that sane, but the inconsistency stands...).
I wish people could just state the transparently documented historical truth, Israel is a US ally because Truman and enough other backers wanted to create a state for Holocaust survivors. The leadership and majority of voters in the US have been true believers in Zionism (in one of its many versions) for generations, and supports Israel by essentially the same logic that Israelis support Israel by. This existed as a state of affairs with almost no opposition at any level until a couple years ago when it came into conflict with another basic belief (about being close enough to just in the cause and method of war that most people could somewhat believe it).
If only Israel wasn't committing a genocide itself, and hadn't treated the Palestinian people like lesser beings for decades, maybe things would be different.
This narrative about the founding of Israel is false.
Israel was founded in the middle of an offensive when it was "descended upon by the Arab world". That was a defensive reaction to Israel's brutal Plan Dalet, an invasion and occupation of Palestine, which extended far beyond what the UN had drawn up.
And then they destroyed 500 villages, ethnically cleansed Palestine of three quarters of a million of Palestinians and never let them return.
They went around with detailed lists of people identified as Arabs in each village, rounded them up, set fire to the villages, and then blew up the rubble. How can you believe that is the act of a legitimate state? It is quite simply evil. Nazi-level shit.
This was not an operation that was sanctioned by the UN's partition plan (which was ridiculous and at odds with the UNs founding principles of self-determination to begin with) it was just retconned into being a legitimate action.
I appreciate you sharing these links and pushing back. It’s clear you’re coming from a place of deep conviction about the historical injustices here, and I respect that.
The Nakba is undeniably a catastrophe for Palestinians, involving mass expulsions, village destructions, and profound human suffering that shapes their identity to this day.
Plan Dalet, as outlined in the Wikipedia article you linked, was indeed a Haganah blueprint that shifted to offensive operations, leading to the depopulation of hundreds of villages and the flight or expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians.
Historians like Ilan Pappé (in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) argue it was a systematic plan for ethnic cleansing, with tactics like sieges, bombings, and forced removals. That’s not something to downplay or excuse: it’s a dark chapter, and comparing elements to other atrocities (while avoiding direct equivalences) highlights the moral weight.
That said, I think the full picture is even more layered, and understanding both sides means grappling with the context without absolving anyone. The Arab states’ intervention in May 1948 wasn’t purely defensive; it was also driven by their own territorial ambitions and opposition to the UN Partition Plan (which, as you note, was flawed and rejected by Palestinians and Arabs for giving 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that owned ~7%). But Plan Dalet was finalized in March 1948 amid escalating civil war violence; after the UN vote in November 1947 sparked attacks from both sides, including Arab irregulars blockading Jewish areas and the Haganah responding in kind. Benny Morris (a “New Historian” who revised much of the traditional Israeli narrative) describes it as a response to anticipated Arab invasions, though he acknowledges the expulsions were often brutal and opportunistic. The plan’s text emphasizes securing Jewish areas and borders “in anticipation of” invasion, but in practice, it went beyond that, capturing territory outside the UN-allotted Jewish state.
You’re right that this wasn’t explicitly sanctioned by the UN, and the partition itself violated self-determination principles (as the Arab Higher Committee argued). But the “retconning” happened post-facto through armistice lines and international recognition of Israel. It’s tragic that Palestinians paid the price for European colonialism, the Holocaust’s aftermath, and Zionist aspirations; all while Arab leaders failed to unify or protect them effectively.
My original point wasn’t to defend Israel as “legitimate” in every action (far from it: they’ve committed wrongs that demand accountability). It was to urge empathy for how each side’s trauma fuels the cycle: Israelis seeing 1948 as survival against existential threats (five Arab armies invading a nascent state), Palestinians as the theft of their homeland. Both narratives have truths, and dismissing one entirely risks perpetuating the divide. If we’re serious about peace, we need to hold space for that complexity; maybe starting with works like Morris’s “1948” or Rashid Khalidi’s “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” for balanced views.
Thanks for engaging thoughtfully; these conversations are hard but necessary.
I still don't understand how you can view the Israeli foundation myth, and the "fear of an existential threat" as legitimate, when the Israeli state's founding was an unjust, immoral, wrong undertaking, the foundation of a colony on someone's homeland.
If a perpetrator breaks into a house and kicks out the homeowners, then declares the attempts to take back said house as an existential threat to their new house ownership, a reasonable person would not view that as a legitimate concern.
It's just not a logically consistent way to look at the situation. I agree that the current day situation is different, considering Israel has existed for two generations. It still does not change the fact that they are forcing an apartheid on the Palestinians, and are engaged in genocide, and have sabotaged any attempt to solve the situation by means other than ethnic cleansing.
I refuse to consider a balanced view when the crimes that have been committed are so unbalanced. Israel has established a society, and that society has clearly established itself as the bad guy, Palestine has not even had a chance to create a society for themselves, so they cannot even be judged to the same standard. But even if we do, it's hard to see them as anything but victims of Zionist oppression.
I try my best when trying to understand things, to think about how people have it today, and not to tie everything to what peoples ancestors did.
The only thing people can really do today is to acknowledge the past, and to do something about it, and if we’re taking the Israeli perspective now, then what we’re essentially telling them to do is not exist.
Many are fine with that being the case (why should they exist when its founded on evil) but there’s a few points there that make it harder to swallow I think.
1) I think if someone told me that I had no right to live in my home country because of its past I would get quite bent out of shape, especially if blood was shed.
(again, not arguing that this makes it entirely valid, just arguing a perspective).
2) It sort of justifies actual genocide. As mentioned in my other examples; any invading force in future will probably slaughter everyone. Because the international conversation surrounding genocides of the last 30 years is a lot more tame than how we talk about the suffering of palestinians.
This disproportionate discussion probably feels unfair, since the average Israeli probably feels like they would want to live peacefully today, if only they were not constantly attacked by Iranian proxies every time attempts at normalisation looked like they were succeeding. Unfortunately this would then include terrorism from Palestine.
I have to really caveat again, that I don’t think Israel is peachy, just that today the Palestinian narrative is a bit more empathised with internationally- but I wouldn’t like myself being in either countries shoes honestly.
I have not said that Israel should not exist, that is your extrapolation.
Israel should be held accountable for what it has done, and if it does not further a two state solution, it should be sanctioned by the international community. Current and previous political leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes, and the country should be reformed into a secular democracy.
That's it, that's my stance.
Now, I don't see any of this happening, and I see a genocide being committed.
You're then characterising any military response as genocidal. This no longer feels like an honest response. First, it's Israel that has decided it wants to be an ethnostate, the only reason it would seem genocidal is because Zionists have conflated a religion with a nationality with citizenship. The bad actor of Israel should still be a valid target of military actions just like others are. Would you say that the allies committed a genocide when they attacked Nazi Germany in the second world war?
And where are you getting these ideas of "invading forces slaughtering everybody"? This is starting to sound like Zionist propaganda. I'm sorry but hypothetical threats do not matter when compared with actual apartheid and genocide.
The Palestinians have always been the less violent party. Israel is also a much more violent and offensively postured military actor than Iran, they developed nukes in secret for chrissakes, and they seem to have immunity from international sanctions.
Israel could choose to live in peace by changing it's military posture, by not constantly attacking its neigbours and destabilizing the region. They currently illegally occupy territory in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. They could simply stop doing that to begin with.
Thanks for clarifying. Your point on Israel choosing peace by de-escalating, halting attacks on neighbors, and ending illegal occupations in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon hits hard. It is a straightforward path to de-escalation that demands action.
But as of today, November 18, 2025, the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza holds broadly, with Israeli forces withdrawn to the “yellow line” and a UN Security Council vote underway for a new Gaza security force that could lead to full Israeli pullout. Trump calls it historic, though Hamas rejects it as insufficient.
This moment tests your idea: if Israel follows through on withdrawal and curbs West Bank settler violence (which has surged, with over 200 attacks reported this month alone), it could prove goodwill. Yet ongoing tunnel operations and regional strikes (like recent hits in Lebanon) show the military posture persists, fuelling distrust.
Pushing Israelis to empathise means seeing Palestinians not as perpetual threats but as equals deserving sovereignty. Many modern Israelis; weary from two years of war, economic hits, and global isolation… privately crave normalcy. They fear that unilateral retreats invite repeats of October 7 or Hezbollah barrages, especially with Iran arming proxies. Ending occupations could shatter that fear cycle, but it requires mutual security guarantees, not just Israeli concessions.
Your WWII analogy still fits: Defeat the aggressors’ system, not the people. Target occupation and apartheid policies surgically. Dismiss their fears, though, and hardliners win. Shared trauma acknowledgment, without equivalence, could spark real dialogue. What gap do you see?
I appreciate the response, but I see the same pattern repeating. You admit to Israel's actual wrongdoing, but equate the hypothetical wrongdoing of Israel's opponents. There is no equivalence here.
Also, Israel has nuclear weapons and the backing of the US, the EU, and Russia. That is enough to deter attacks. Further security guarantees are redundant, but sure, add them.
I agree that the system should be defeated, but I don't think purely diplomatic solutions will work. At least not ones that assumes Israel acts in good faith. Israel has shown that it will not respect international law, and Israeli opinion on Arabs is not just extreme in a small group of hardliners, it's widespread. In order to make a real change.
I believe Israel has to be brought to heel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. That is what tipped the scale with apartheid South Africa, that is most likely the best course of action here as well. Israel does what it wants, it is a self-interested bad faith actor. We need a powerful coalition of international actors to associate a cost with Israel's crimes. That's BDS.
The issue is that Israel has lobbied for anti-BDS laws in the US, making this more difficult. It's an uphill battle, which is also why a balanced discussion about Israeli concerns will not improve the situation. Israel is fighting a propaganda war. If we start debating things other than how to reform Israel, Israel wins. It can delay, confuse, and run interference against any actual discussion about the real problem: the ethnonationalist founding principles of Israel, the apartheid, the genocide, the imperial ambitions of Israel, the blatant disregard for international law and treaties.
I appreciate the discussion so far, but I think I've said everything I want to say. If you have any final thoughts, I'd be glad to hear them.
I get your frustration with patterns in these debates, and you’re right that Israel’s documented crimes: apartheid policies, genocidal violence in Gaza, and blatant violations of international law… stand alone in scale and impunity.
No hypotheticals from opponents come close, and that’s not up for debate. The power asymmetry is massive: nukes, US and EU support (Russia’s more pro-Palestinian, actually, with recent UN pushes for Palestinian statehood), and anti-BDS lobbying make good-faith diplomacy a tough sell without real pressure.
But let’s cut to the core: wrongdoing isn’t one-sided. You have to acknowledge that on the Palestinian side too: rocket attacks on civilians, suicide bombings, and October 7’s civilian massacres are wrongs that can’t be waved away as pure resistance. Both sides have blood on their hands, and denying that keeps the cycle spinning. In the end, it’s all just people: ordinary Palestinians crushed under occupation, and ordinary Israelis living in fear, both wanting safety for their families.
Put yourself in those Israeli shoes; surrounded by states and groups that have historically vowed your destruction, with no other viable homeland to flee to after centuries of global expulsions. You’d feel threatened too, right? That doesn’t excuse Israel’s aggressions, but it explains why zero empathy guarantees endless war.
BDS is a sharp tool; it broke South Africa’s back through isolation, and it could here: boycotts draining the economy, divestment from occupation profiteers, sanctions on war criminals. Ramp it up, build the coalition, associate real costs with the ethnonationalism and imperialism. But to make it stick, humanise the people enough to split internal hardliners from the weary majority open to secular change. Otherwise, you’re just fueling the propaganda you call out. Good talk.. it’s pushed me to think harder.
Only someone trying to silence any dissent to their position would use platitudes like this rather than addressing why the OP mentioned antisemitism out of nowhere.
That certainly seems to be their attitude. If israel had listened to all of the advice from Britain and France it may well have been 60k Israelis dead. Imagine how many palestinians would have died. Nobody here is arguing against israel in good faith. If anyone had genuinely cared about the palestinians they would have put massive pressure on Hamas and put their full support behind a quick and brutal campaign. What would have happened? A 2 month long war and 20k dead max.
Because when a nation starts believing its own myths of moral purity, it stops seeing the line between justice and domination. This is a dangerous line to cross.
It’s interesting how people insist math requires expert validation when it’s literally the most self validating subject there is. The instinct to gatekeep even something as mechanistically checkable as algebra says more about insecurity in education than it does about rigor.
You’re projecting a bad faith use case that the original commenter never described. they’re using it in a exploratory and iterative way, not deferential.
No it isn't. Again, what's happening here I think is that this thread doesn't understand what Math Academy is. It's not an LLM. I'm using the LLM alongside it.
"5.11 or 5.9 which number is greater?" was a meme query a few months ago to ask an LLM as it would confidenly prove how 5.11 is greater - so yes, we do need expert validation!
A very, very big problem we have with LLM discourse is that LLMs have changed radically since the beginning of last year. If you're making an argument about modern foundation models based on the idea that they can't generate reliably correct answers to whether 5.11 is greater than 5.9, your mental model is completely out of date.
You don't have to believe me on this, just your own lying eyes. Go try this for yourself right now: ask it dy/dx of h(x)/g(x) where h(x) is x^3 + 1 and g(x) is -2e^x. That's a random Math Academy review problem I did last night that I pulled out of Notes.app. Go look.
I think you’re misreading the situation. the original commenter isn’t outsourcing thinking, they’re using the tool to probe and test ideas, not to blindly accept end result answers which LLMs are (currently) not to be blindly trusted.
