No analogy is perfect. I think you are straining very hard to be able to dismiss it.
It's the Islamic supremacy narrative that has been the problem for the Palestinians all along. When Israel was founded they were afraid the Jews would treat them as they had treated Jews under Ottoman rule.
When Israel was founded every country around Israel expelled their Jews, seized their property and forced them to Israel.
Did you forget about that? Which created predictable problems.
It was the Muslims fear of Jewish power that triggered the Nakhba. While atrocities were committed. It wasn't ethnic cleansing.
When Israel treated the Palestinians who didn't run with respect, the Muslims didn't really know what to do about it. The assumption is all the time that Palestinians in Israel are opressed somehow. They're really not. And never were. They live normal lives in Israel, just like the Jews
You keep trying to frame this entire conflict around "Islamic supremacy", as if Palestinian resistance to occupation and apartheid is just a cover for religious dominance. That’s not historical nuance, that’s a talking point ripped straight from the playbook of nationalist propaganda.
You claim “fear of Jewish power” is what caused the Nakba? No. The Nakba wasn’t driven by some irrational Muslim paranoia, it was driven by the systematic displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians, often through forced expulsions, village demolitions, and massacres like Deir Yassin. That's documented by both Israeli historians and international scholars. You can gaslight the word “ethnic cleansing” all you want, but facts don’t become fiction because you’re uncomfortable with the terminology.
Then you say Palestinians who “didn’t run” were treated with respect, completely ignoring decades of military law, land confiscation, discriminatory zoning, and unequal rights faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel. If that’s your bar for “respect,” it’s telling.
And no, I didn’t “forget” that Jews were expelled from Arab countries. But unlike you, I don’t weaponize one trauma to justify another. That’s like saying Jim Crow laws were okay because slavery existed somewhere else.
You keep painting Palestinians as the aggressors driven by supremacy, while stripping every one of their grievances down to irrational hate. That’s not analysis, it’s projection. And ironically, it's the exact same logic white supremacists use to explain Black resistance in America: “They hate us because of who we are.” You don’t see that? I do.
So no, the analogy isn’t “imperfect.” It’s wildly dishonest. And if we apply your own standard about how rhetoric implies allegiance, your words echo the very supremacist ideologies you claim to oppose.
Islam is not a race. FYI, Arabs are racist against Palestinians. And Palestinians are racist toward black Muslim. To an extreme degree. This is not the west. The Middle East is different. They talk so casualy about races. Racial essentialism is generally assumed to true. Among Muslims. Not among Ashkenazi Jews. I'm sure there's racist Jews. But Ashkenazi Jews in Israel culturally western.
Power and loyalty dynamics in the Middle-East are mind bendingly complicated. I think its probably more ethnically fractured than anywhere else on earth. And they're all, pretty much, racist towards eachother. Its completely normalised
You keep trying to deflect criticism of systemic oppression by saying, “Well, they’re all racist over there.” that’s a cop-out.
Yes, racism exists in Palestinian communities. Yes, the Middle East is deeply fractured. But pointing that out doesn’t justify state-level displacement, military occupation, or apartheid policies. That’s like saying, “Jim Crow wasn’t so bad because Black communities had internal issues too.”
And let’s talk about that “Ashkenazi Jews are culturally Western” trash. That’s your polite way of saying “the racism is more refined.” You’re drawing a line between “good racism” (quiet, institutional, Western) and “bad racism” (loud, blunt, Eastern). That’s typical white supremacist bias.
Your argument boils down to:
Everyone’s racist, so no one’s responsible. But when Palestinians react violently to being occupied, suddenly intent matters, and you project onto the entire religion and ethnicity supremacism. That’s inconsistency.
If we used your logic and applied it equally, we’d be calling out Zionist supremacy too, but I suspect that’s where your “mind-bending nuance” ends.
he difference is that white supremacists are just talking shit. White supremacists are paranoid. Their fears are based on fantasies.
Do you seriously think the dangers facing Israel are imaginary?
Ah, I see, so when white supremacists make sweeping generalizations based on fear, it's “paranoia.” But when you do it about Palestinians or Muslims, it’s “realism.” Got it.
The
difference, according to you, is that their imagined threat justifies nothing… but your perceived threat justifies checkpoints, blockades, mass arrests, home demolitions, civilian casualties, and indefinite military occupation?
Sounds like textbook supremacist logic to me:
"Our fear is noble and proactive. Theirs is ignorant and dangerous."
You don’t get to claim moral high ground while validating one group’s dominance over another based on who you think is justified in being afraid. That’s not analysis, it’s just choosing a side and cloaking it in selective morality.
If intent doesn’t matter (your words), and parroting Hamas propaganda makes someone a Hamas apologist, then let’s be fair: repeating white nationalist rhetoric about demographic threats and racial fear, even if
you think it’s based in reality, makes you sound exactly like the supremacists you claim to oppose.
You didn’t kill the argument, you just switched jerseys.
They should have thought about that before doing the 7/10 attack. Hamas is the government of Gaza. The fact that the Gazans didn't vote about it is neither here nor there.
Good luck digging yourself out of that hole.
Ah, so now we're back to
collective punishment as moral high ground?
By your logic, if a non-elected government commits an atrocity, every civilian under their control deserves the fallout, regardless of whether they supported it, voted for it, or were even old enough to understand it. That’s the hole you're proudly standing in, not me.
Let’s flip it: If the U.S. government commits a war crime, should every American, regardless of age, political stance, or ability to vote, be fair game for retribution? Of course not. That would be absurd. That would be terrorism. But for Gaza? Suddenly the rules change.
And here’s the kicker: You claim Hamas is the legitimate government of Gaza and use that to justify the civilian suffering, but earlier you were tripping over yourself to separate Israeli settlers from the Israeli state, claiming the government can't control them.
So when Israelis commit violence:
“It’s complicated, don’t generalize, they’re individuals!”
When Palestinians suffer under Hamas:
“Too bad, that’s your government. You all had it coming.”
You’re not defending Israel. You’re defending a double standard. One that just so happens to align perfectly with every dehumanizing rationale supremacist regimes have used to justify collective punishment throughout history.
So no, I’m not the one in a hole. I’m just not standing on a moral sinkhole and calling it high ground.
So what do you think the state of Israel stands for? This will be interesting. I'm preparing for more racist drivel out of your mouth. I hope you disappoint my preconceptions.
Om Friday I will host a Palestinian and a Jew in my home. I hope they don't start a war. I joke. They travelled together all the way from Israel. I assume they get along
What does the state of Israel stand for? That’s a question best answered by
Israel’s own declarations, its founding documents, legal precedents, and the evolving policies of its democratically elected governments over the decades. I’m not here to project my own fantasy onto it, or to weaponize someone else's suffering to justify political stances.
But let’s be real: your question wasn’t sincere, it was bait. You pre-loaded it with accusations of racism before I even answered. That’s not debate, that’s deflection.
Also, bringing up that you're hosting a Palestinian and a Jew is classic rhetorical theater. It’s the “I have Black friends” of geopolitics. Hosting two individuals doesn’t absolve you from the biased, often dehumanizing narratives you’ve pushed in this thread.
The issue isn’t whether Jews and Palestinians can share a room in peace, it’s whether we hold governments accountable for their policies, whether we recognize civilian suffering no matter who’s inflicting it, and whether we’re capable of seeing injustice without needing it to fit neatly into our preferred ideological framework.
So no, you don't get to hide behind anecdotes and pre-emptive slurs to dodge critique. If you're truly interested in what I believe Israel stands for, ask without loading the question with assumptions. Otherwise, it’s not curiosity, it’s your typical bullshit, theatrics.