Yes, the Jewish settlers is a problem. Nobody sane denies that.
Welcome to the world of nuance
Nuance doesn't mean selectively tolerating complexity only when it supports your preferred narrative. In this thread, you rightly point out that Jewish settlers are a problem. But if someone else made that same point — even in moral or legal terms — you'd likely accuse them of antisemitism or being pro-Hamas if they didn't frame it exactly the way you wanted.
We shouldn't downplay the settler issue as a marginal problem. The expansion of settlements in the West Bank has been systematically supported and enabled by the Israeli state for decades. It's not just about rogue individuals; it’s a structural policy. As far back as the 1970s, Israeli governments of both left and right expanded settlements, often displacing Palestinians from their homes and lands. This includes not only settler violence but also demolition orders, land seizures, and legal manipulation through military courts — practices condemned by the UN, Amnesty International, and even Israeli human rights organizations like B’Tselem.
You're right to say that Hamas is evil. Their ideology and actions — including the deliberate targeting of civilians — are indefensible. But if we're being honest about provocations, we must recognize that October 7 didn't come from a vacuum. To say that attack was “unprovoked” is a political framing that erases decades of occupation, blockade, and military violence — none of which justifies Hamas’s actions, but all of which explain the build-up to them.
Itamar Ben Gvir, a far-right Israeli minister who has openly admired Meir Kahane (whose party was banned for racism and whose ideology inspired Jewish terrorism), has played a central role in provocations. His visits to Al-Aqsa Mosque, framed as "assertions of Jewish rights," are perceived by Palestinians as deeply antagonistic and desecrating. Such actions inflame already volatile tensions and empower extremists on both sides.
The earlier momentum toward a two-state solution was indeed a real prospect — most notably during the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, championed by Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres on the Israeli side, and Yasser Arafat for the PLO. Tragically, Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by Yigal Amir, an Israeli ultranationalist who opposed territorial concessions. That assassination wasn’t just symbolic — it was a turning point. Likewise, on the Palestinian side, moderates have often been sidelined or outright suppressed by more radical factions, including Hamas, which has been known to assassinate political rivals and impose authoritarian rule in Gaza.
So yes — on both sides, extremists citing ancient religious claims have used those narratives to justify land seizure, violence, and even the killing of children — all in the name of divine entitlement.
There was a time when coexistence and mutual recognition seemed within reach, fragile but possible. That window may have closed, perhaps permanently. But one thing is certain: dismissing history, using double standards, or shutting down critical voices by accusing them of extremism or bigotry only drives us further from peace. If we want to resurrect the hope of a better way forward, it will require exactly the kind of uncomfortable honesty that gets people labeled unfairly in threads like this one.
It ended the war via dropping two atom bombs — two huge war crimes.
