It was you who failed to grasp my argument with a poor analogy. Don't try to shift blame on me for your failed attempt at a strawman.
No user have responded in earnest to my post.
As it went to deaf ears with a previous user, I implore you to contrast both societies. Let's see how in touch with reality you really are.
If you truly are approaching this with honesty you will be able to differentiate flawed decision making with societal norms.
Good luck
Winning an argument is a terrible notion. Some arguments are not meant to be won; indeed, some arguments cannot be won. You cannot change someone's opinion unless they are open to change. However, in debating any argument one can attain better clarity and a deeper understanding of differing views. The trap is the knowledge that at any point in a contested discussion, a moment arrives where a question is posed, an answer is given, and a conflicting worldview is revealed. At that point I have to decide how to proceed. Do I attack that view? Do I try to argue against that view? How will any of my actions change the relationship I have with the other person, for good or bad?
You asked me two direct questions: first, "amongst who would you rather live with?" and second, "Why don't you contrast both societies and tell me which one would you rather raise a family in?"
On the surface, the choice seems straightforward. You paint the picture that Israeli society is "flawed but civilized," possessing mechanisms for order and the potential for reform. It is a Western-aligned country, touting Western values, with an open-door policy for Jews around the world. The other is depicted as a breeding ground for terrorists; the West Bank and Gaza are presented as irredeemably barbaric territories that reject peaceful coexistence. Presented this way, the answer is surely obvious.
But I have a doubt. How can an entire people be irredeemable? It defies logic. What happened in their past, present, or future to lead them to this point?
The choice presented is a brutal one: die a physical death in Gaza among those labeled animals and barbarians, or live within Israel's flawed society. But was that ever the sum of Gaza? Before the bombings, it was a place of schools, hospitals, culture, and life. It was a place of weddings and graduations, of fishermen and engineers. Were the millions who lived there truly a single entity—a disease to be burned away?
And Israel? A "flawed society"? "Flawed" suggests a minor defect in an otherwise sound structure. It does not describe a decades-long project of settling the West Bank, a policy of "mowing the lawn" in Gaza, or the systemic impunity that follows allegations of atrocity.
For Israel, Oct 7th was the final atrocity, that it must be "never again." But what does "never again" mean for tomorrow? The stated goal is to utterly destroy Hamas. But can Hamas even be utterly destroyed? What is Hamas? Is it a group of 20,000-35,000 fighters? Is it a population of 2.2 million? Or is it an idea?
I have to remind myself. "A flawed but civilized society." Flawed. Civilized. Words on a page. What do they mean?
After WW2, my family did not move to Israel; we ended up in Ireland. I knew family members had died, but it was in the past. I was not constrained by it. My parents were, but for me, it was history. Ireland has a shared history with Palestine, and that history, for me, overrode the history of the Holocaust. When I discussed this with my father, he too was challenged. How could Israel do what it was doing, decade after decade, when the memory of the Holocaust was so fresh?
And then I learned a key principle: I am not the person I was yesterday. I am not defined by what I did, but by what I do.
A society, like a person, must live by the same standard. It cannot use the trauma of its past to justify the infliction of trauma in its present. The world you describe, the binary you insist upon, is a trap. It is a choice between a physical death there, or a death of conscience here.
I refuse the choice. To reject your binary is not to endorse horror; it is to demand a future where such a choice does not exist. It is to insist that "never again" must mean never again for anyone.