I’m not ignoring the West Bank at all; the same security logic applies there.
You call it 'terror,' but the reality is a relentless anti-terror campaign against factions like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas cells, and the Lion's Den, which are actively funded and armed by Iran to launch suicide bombings and shootings into Israeli cities. Just like in Gaza, when the IDF operates in places like Jenin or Nablus, it is targeting explosive labs, weapons caches, and gunmen not hunting civilians at bus stops.
If Israel pulled its security presence out of the West Bank tomorrow, it wouldn't create a peaceful Palestinian state; it would create a massive vacuum that Hamas and Iran would instantly fill, turning the hills overlooking Ben Gurion Airport and Tel Aviv into a giant launchpad for rockets.
Once again, you are treating Israel's self-defense measures as the cause of the conflict, rather than a direct response to a constant, lethal threat

Gaza, I can see your argument, Lebanon I can see your argument. Same goes for Iran. But Israel is literally carrying out state sponsored terror in the West Bank for years. There is so much evidence to support this that your argument is simply not worth defending. I strongly recommend you not debate the West Bank.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 7 2026 08:15am

You just conceded the argument on Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran because the security logic is undeniable and that exact same logic applies to Judea and Samaria.
Telling me not to debate it isn't an argument; it’s a white flag. You can't separate the West Bank from Iran, Hamas, and PIJ when they are the ones pouring millions of dollars and smuggled weapons into places like Jenin and Tulkarm to turn them into terror hubs.
If pointing out that Israel is systematically dismantling bomb labs and stopping suicide bombers makes my argument 'not worth defending' to you, that’s fine. But I live in the real world where stopping a terrorist before he crosses the Green Line into Tel Aviv isn't 'state-sponsored terror' it’s the absolute, non negotiable duty of a sovereign country protecting its citizens. You don't get to dictate which parts of our survival we are allowed to defend.

No, i did not concede, i said I understand your view. these are not the same thing. you have overstepped here and i will respond.

There's no overstepping here. You literally said you can 'see the argument' on three massive military fronts, but then tried to lock down the fourth because it doesn't fit your narrative.
If you have a real counter-argument that explains how Israel is supposed to handle Iranian-funded terror hubs in the West Bank without military operations, go ahead and lay it out.

The floor is yours sir!

Now, I am not trying to piss you off, and I apologise that this is quite long. my core issue is the final comment, whereby when I mention Israeli attacks you dismiss them, or my arguments related to them. So you might not think its fair what I say at the end, but try to take a step back and look at it from a neutral, non-israeli perspective. without further ado:

I acknowledge your security-first approach, the siege mentality, and the reality of Israel's history and its neighbors. This is a long running conversation going on two years. I understand your viewpoint. I accept that we agree on some things and disagree on others. I have no problem saying "I don't know" or "I don't live there" or even saying things we can agree on - for example, I can readily say: Israel's strike on Iran in 2025 was justified, noting Iran funded Oct 7th.

What I struggle with is Israel's overarching policies in Gaza and the West Bank. My view is they are not designed to enable lasting peace. They are drivers of future conflict. When I debate this with you, I hit a wall where you disagree that actions today lead to consequences tomorrow. As an example: Hamas on Oct 7th, and Iran's funding, led to Israel bombing Iran. Actions → Consequences. If you agree with that, why can you not agree that bombing Gaza for two years straight, killing 75,000+ people, wounding three times that, while settler violence and military operations in the West Bank have led to 1,000+ dead — why will that not lead to armed resistance? Or in your terms, terrorist attacks by Palestinians in the West Bank?

Israel will have its way in the West Bank. That is inevitable now. The two-state solution is dead. So I don't understand your Germany and Japan example. They are not the same. Germany and Japan were sovereign nations that surrendered unconditionally. The Allies then occupied and rebuilt them as part of a political solution. Israel is not doing that. Israel is not offering Palestinians a political solution — in fact, the two-state solution is currently abhorrent in Israeli culture. Israel is offering permanent military rule without citizenship. Without a political solution, we are back to actions and consequences. Breaking Hamas just means another Hamas will emerge in five years, because the occupation remains. The problem Israel faces in Gaza is that it has poured Palestinian water into a small bucket called Gaza, and every few years that bucket tips over.

A political partner does not come from nothing. It needs to be cultivated. A partner emerges when an occupying power creates conditions where moderation is rewarded and resistance becomes pointless. Israel did the opposite. Over decades, Israel expanded settlements, deepened the occupation, and systematically undermined the PA. Your argument is that Israel is not an apartheid state because Gaza and the West Bank are not part of Israel — yet. But Israel has increased its expansion into the West Bank, and this directly conflicts with your position. As the West Bank continues to be colonised by "legal" and illegal settlements, it is de facto becoming part of Israel.

Hamas does not operate in the West Bank. The PA recognizes Israel. It cooperates on security. And yet Israeli military operations, settler violence, home demolitions, and daily humiliations and deaths continue. If your logic is "security first", explain why the West Bank, which does not have a Hamas problem, is under increasing military control and land confiscation. The answer is not security. The answer is that Israel is not willing to end the occupation anywhere, but rather increase it, regardless of who is in power.

The occupation began decades before Hamas existed. Self-defense is real. But self-defense does not require permanent military rule over 5 million people without citizenship. Self-defense does not require settlements in the West Bank. Self-defense does not require controlling Gaza's borders, water, electricity, and airspace while not providing political rights. That is not defense. That is domination. And domination always produces resistance.

To simplify this post:

I condemn ALL HAMAS TERRORIST ATTACKS. I CONDEMN IRAN. I CONDEMN HEZBOLLAH.
Can you now please CONDEMN the attack by Israel that killed that baby?

Thank you.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 7 2026 11:05am

I appreciate the tone and the depth of your response, Ferida But, your entire argument rests on a few massive misconceptions about the reality on the ground.
1. The Factual Reality of the West Bank
You wrote: 'Hamas does not operate in the West Bank... explain why the West Bank, which does not have a Hamas problem, is under increasing military control.'
This is factually completely incorrect. Hamas absolutely operates heavily in Judea and Samaria. Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and groups like the Lion's Den have established massive, heavily armed strongholds in places like Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarm. They are actively funded and armed by Iran to launch suicide bombings and shootings into Israeli cities. The IDF isn't conducting operations there out of a desire for 'domination'; it is actively dismantling underground explosive labs, intercepting advanced weapon smuggling networks, and stopping active suicide plots. If the IDF steps out, the PA collapses, and the West Bank becomes Gaza 2.0 within a week.

2. Actions vs. Consequences: The Reversal of History
You argue that Israeli military pressure creates the resistance (Actions \rightarrow Consequences). But you are completely reversing the historical timeline. The security dominance didn't cause the 1948 war, the 1967 war, or the original charters calling for Israel's destruction genocidal rejectionism caused them.
You claim a partner must be 'cultivated' by easing pressure. Israel tried exactly that. In the 1990s, the Oslo Accords gave the Palestinians self governance, land, weapons, and a path to a state. The 'consequence' was the Second Intifada and over 1,000 Israelis blown up on buses and in cafes. In 2005, Israel dismantled every single settlement in Gaza, pulled back to the 1967 lines, and left it entirely. The 'consequence' wasn't peace; it was Hamas seizing power and launching 20 years of rockets. History has proven that easing security dominance before a radical ideology is defeated doesn't reward moderation it simply creates a staging ground for the next massacre.

3. Germany, Japan, and Unconditional Surrender
You noted that Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally, and then the Allies rebuilt them. Exactly. The key word is unconditional surrender. The Nazi and Imperial Japanese ideologies were utterly crushed, and their populations accepted total defeat. Only after that defeat did the Allies rebuild them. Palestinian leadership has never surrendered its goal of destroying Israel. You cannot implement a Marshall Plan while the population is still actively launching attacks and celebrating the slaughter of your citizens. Security control is the only mechanism left when the other side refuses to surrender its militant ambitions.


You asked me to condemn the operational strike that tragically killed a seven-month-old baby.
Let me say this clearly: Every single innocent life lost whether a baby in Gaza, a child in the West Bank, or an Israeli family is an absolute, heartbreaking tragedy. No sane person celebrates the death of a child.
But I will not play a game of false moral equivalence. There is a profound, non-negotiable difference between intent and tragedy.
When a Palestinian terrorist walks up to a bus stop or infiltrates a home to shoot a baby, the civilian death is the explicit goal. When an IDF soldier fires on a vehicle or an area because of intelligence pointing to a terrorist asset, and a child is tragically caught in the crossfire, it is a horrific tragedy of war. The IDF actively investigates its own operational errors; terrorists throw candies in the street to celebrate theirs.
If you cannot see the difference between a nation-state making tragic, fatal errors while fighting an existential war, and a terrorist movement whose entire strategy is the deliberate murder of innocents, then we aren't arguing about politics we are arguing about basic morality.

This post was edited by Many_Names on Jun 8 2026 12:36am

you said a lot of things here but you did not condemn the killing of a child. instead you say you wont play a game of false moral equivalence. In your world view Israel can do no wrong. or when you do wrong, you dont say sorry, but rather "they made us do it". if you look at the image Norlander posted it hits the mark. You are on a land against an enemy, and you are righteous and they are not. but for everyone else looking at the war, Israel is doing things that people find unpalatable - this is not to say that your enemy is right, they are not, but rather that the notion of a holy people vs an unholy people is simply wrong. I know I am not going to convince you but that does not stop me from calling it out when I see it.