After posting here, I realized that many did not believe this was happening and were unaware of Russia's previous forays into disinformation and interfering in western politics.

FIRST, is this happening?

1) YES cloudflare is reporting a measurable decrease in bot traffic.

2) Traffic for "Free Palestine" is down 70% over the last week.

3) After the bombing, Russian supported right wing commentators saw a measurable decline in viewership, including Tucker Carlson and the "TCN" network.

4) Elon most lost millions of engagements over the last week.

Second, Why Russia do Propaganda?

To mess up the west. They've done this before.

1) Most relevant to this sub was was Operation SIG, which gave up most of the vocabulary of this conflict. This was the first time Israel was "rebranded" as white, colonial, racist oppressor. They aggressively pushed the narrative that the Palestinian struggle was identical to the Black civil rights struggle in America, and that the U.S. and Israel were twin imperialist enemies.

2) There was also disinformation in the 1980s around AIDS

3) And targeting black voters in the 2016 election, helping to get Trump elected.

4) A lot of the time Russian propaganda simply emphasized existing racial divides in America, like they did in the 1930s.

"A survey conducted by YouGov and commissioned by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) found that 45% of the British public agrees with the statement that Israel treats Palestinians the way Nazis treated Jews."

And of course we know that "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi."

"Punch a Nazi."

Or let's go further. Does anyone think that Nazi Germany should have been negotiated with? That there could have been a change of heart? That they just needed an election to change course? No. Of course not. It's pretty much agreed upon that bombing Dresden was a necessity. Does anyone feel bad when they see a Nazi soldier die? No, of course not. Because the Nazis are agreed upon to be Evil with a capital E. The only solution to Nazi Germany was to destroy it. It's military had to be destroyed. All of its institutions broken apart. It had to be built from the ground up.

----

Now let's apply this to Israel. If nearly half of adults in the UK see Israel as doing the same thing to Palestinians as Nazis did to Jews, then logically speaking, what does that mean they accept as being the correct course of action when dealing with Israel? Is it to negotiate peace? To make agreed upon borders? No. It is to treat Israel the way one treats a Nazi. That is, Israel must be destroyed, with nothing left from it besides people who are to be placed under military occupation until a new country can be formed.

There is no nuance in this. There is no negotiation. There is no "Israel has 1000+ terror attacks a year coming from the West Bank. Tens of thousands of rockets from Gaza (with the blockade!). Hezbollah to the north who caused 95,000 Israelis to be displaced. An Iranian regime that is pumping money and arms into destroying Israel. And a history of wars of survival against hostile neighbors where one loss could mean their destruction.

And what happens then when people say "a terror attack hit Israel civilians." The answer becomes "this is a Nazi society. There is no sympathy for them. Everyone is in the IDF, so they are all guilty. Either they are in the Nazi military or were in the Nazi military. Either way, killing them is moral."

And if asked "what happens if Israel vanishes and the people who have spent a century trying to destroy it become the majority?" The answer is "whatever they want to do with Nazis. It is the Nazis who were at fault."

And I think this is dangerous. Repeating ad nauseum that "Israel is an illigitimate settler colonial apartheid state that is genocidal and treats indigenous people like the Nazis treated Jews" doesn't help any solution. All it does is promote violence, and flatten a conflict into "good vs evil" where the only solution is to destroy the evil.

Moreso, what does it mean for Israelis? It feeds the Right Wing. The security hawks. Because they can point to polls like this and say "Look at what the world thinks of you. Hear what they want to do to Nazis. And that is how they see you and your family. Vote for me, because if I am in charge? Then we can protect ourselves. We can't trust the world because they want to see you dead."

It fuels the fire for "resistance" because why should Palestinians negotiate for a State when more and more of the world says that Israel = Nazis, and therefore are behind their struggle? And why should Israel make concessions when the world tells them that if shit hits the fan, this is how they are seen?

I believe it is as counter productive as it is insulting. Anyone agree? Disagree?

So, I know that discussions surrounding formerly Zionist Jews turning anti-Zionist have become increasingly common, especially in light of the genocide in Gaza. You also have prominent Jewish figures like Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappé, Gabor Maté, Simmone Zimmerman, etc all of whom were formerly Zionists but gradually became disillusioned with Zionism for various reasons, many of them long before the current war in Gaza.

Out of the Jews in my life, I've never personally witnessed any of them switch sides. For example, among the Ashkenazim I know, three of my aunts (who married into my family), their children (my cousins), and an Ashkenazi mentor of mine are all staunch Zionists, while the remaining Ashkenazim in my social/personal circle are anti-Zionists to quite an extreme degree (they want ALL of the Jews to leave Israel/Palestine). In the case of the Sephardim/Mizrahim in my life, all of them and their families are hardcore Zionists. None of these people, at any point during the time I've known them, have undergone any significant ideological transformation regarding Zionism. Their positions have remained relatively consistent, regardless of the political developments in Israel and Palestine.

Just going based on media alone, it seems more often that Ashkenazim who were raised in Zionist homes end up becoming anti-Zionist as they've gotten older and have gotten to socialize more with Palestinians and Arabs by extension, particularly as they've become more exposed to Palestinian historical narratives, the realities of the occupation, and perspectives that may not have been emphasized in their upbringing. Of course, I'm aware this could simply reflect the kinds of Jewish voices that receive more media attention, rather than an accurate representation of broader ideological trends within Jewish communities.

However, I'm curious about the opposite phenomenon. Have any of you known Jews who were raised in anti-Zionist households, or who personally identified as anti-Zionists for a significant portion of their lives, but eventually came to embrace Zionism? I'm also interested in cases where this transformation happened in adulthood, rather than simply reflecting the political beliefs they inherited from their families.

If so, what prompted the change? Was it a greater appreciation for Jewish history and national identity, personal experiences with antisemitism, disillusionment with certain anti-Zionist movements, interactions with Israelis, or perhaps a reassessment of what Zionism actually means to them? I'm not necessarily talking about Jews who became staunch supporters of the Israeli government or its policies, but rather those who came to believe that Jewish national self-determination in Israel/Palestine was something worth supporting, even if they remained critical of the Israeli state's actions.

I'd especially appreciate hearing from Jewish users here who have personally undergone this ideological transformation, although I'd also be interested in hearing about people you've known who experienced something similar.

I keep seeing this argument:
“Jews were only 33% of the population of Palestine, but the UN gave them 56% of the land.”
It sounds outrageous until you actually look at what the partition plan proposed.

The problem is that the argument compares the Jewish share of the population of the entire Mandate with the territorial size of the proposed Jewish state, while completely ignoring who was actually supposed to live inside each state.

According to the UN Special Committee on Palestine, the total population of Mandatory Palestine at the end of 1946 was approximately:

1,203,000 Arabs
608,000 Jews
35,000 others

So yes, Jews were roughly one third of the total population.

But now look at the actual partition.
The proposed Jewish state:

498,000 Jews
407,000 Arabs and others
905,000 settled inhabitants total

And UNSCOP added that there would also be about 90,000 Bedouins in the Jewish state.

The proposed Arab state:

725,000 Arabs
10,000 Jews
735,000 total

Jerusalem, which was supposed to be international:

105,000 Arabs
100,000 Jews
205,000 total.

So look at what was actually happening.

The Jewish state was expected to take in roughly:
82% of all the Jews in Palestine
498,000 out of 608,000.

The Arab state was expected to contain only about:

60% of all the Arabs in Palestine
725,000 out of roughly 1.2 million.
The rest of the Arabs were not being “excluded” from the Jewish state. Quite the opposite.

Around 407,000 Arabs, plus approximately 90,000 Bedouins, were supposed to live inside the Jewish state.
That means close to half the population of the Jewish state would have been Arab, depending on how the Bedouins are counted.

Meanwhile, the Arab state would have been almost completely Arab, with only about 10,000 Jews, roughly 1% of its population.
So the real comparison is not:
33% of the people got 56% of the land.

It is closer to:

A Jewish-majority state containing almost the entire Jewish population and around half a million Arabs got roughly 56% of the territory.

An overwhelmingly Arab state containing around 725,000 Arabs and almost no Jews got roughly 43%.
And then Jerusalem, containing around another 205,000 people, was not assigned to either side at all.
That is a completely different picture.

And there is another huge fact that the “56%” slogan conveniently leaves out.

A massive chunk of the territory assigned to the Jewish state was the Negev.

The proposed Jewish state included the entire Beersheba subdistrict, including the Negev. UNSCOP itself explicitly notes that this area was included in the Jewish state.
The Negev was enormous, sparsely populated and mostly desert.

So when someone shows you a map and says:
“Look how much land the Jews got”
a huge part of that visual advantage comes from a gigantic desert in the south.

The Jewish state was not getting 56% of Palestine’s fertile land, cities, villages and population centers.
A huge amount of its territorial area was desert.
This is why using raw land percentage without population distribution is so misleading.

It also flips the usual “unfairness” argument on its head.
The Jewish state was being asked to absorb almost the entire Jewish population of Palestine while also governing an enormous Arab minority that could have amounted to around half its population.

The Arab state, by contrast, would have been almost ethnically homogeneous.
And that matters politically.
One state would have had a razor-thin Jewish majority and hundreds of thousands of Arab citizens.
The other would have had 725,000 Arabs and only 10,000 Jews.

That is not remotely captured by saying:
“33% got 56%.”
The UN itself recognized this problem. In its report, UNSCOP explicitly said:
“The Arab State will organize the substantial majority of Arabs in Palestine into a political body containing an insignificant minority of Jews; but in the Jewish State there will be a considerable minority of Arabs.”

That is literally how the committee described its own plan.
And it is worth stressing what the plan was trying to solve.
UNSCOP described Palestine as containing two competing national movements, roughly 650,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs, whose political aspirations it regarded as irreconcilable at the time.

Its partition proposal was an attempt to create two sovereign states while preserving an economic union between them.

You can argue that the borders were bad.
You can argue that the plan was unworkable.
You can argue that Arabs objected to being placed under a Jewish-majority government.

All of those are legitimate historical arguments.
But the line:
“Jews were 33% of the population and therefore giving them 56% of the land was obviously unfair”
is an incredibly shallow way to describe the proposal.

It ignores:
The actual population inside each proposed state.
The fact that almost all Jews were concentrated in the Jewish state.

The fact that hundreds of thousands of Arabs were also included in it.

The fact that the Arab state was almost entirely Arab.
The fact that Jerusalem was international.

And the fact that a huge percentage of the Jewish state’s territory was the sparsely populated Negev desert.

Once you include those facts, the partition plan looks much less like “one third of the population was handed most of the country” and much more like what it actually was:
An attempt to divide a mixed population into two states, with the Jewish state carrying by far the larger minority problem and receiving a huge amount of sparsely populated desert territory.
Sources:
UNSCOP Report, 1947, population and partition figures:
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179435/
UN summary of the population distribution under partition:
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196558/
UNSCOP majority partition proposal, population table:
https://palquest.org/en/node/40831

Hi guys, I don't mean to be pro-Israel when I say this (you can check my post history if you like, no pro-Israel brigading and this is my first post here), but one of the reasons why I'm never fully on board the Pro-Palestine camp is because of the things I often hear from my Muslim friends about Israel and the Jewish people.

I lived in a Muslim-majority country in my childhood, and continue to have Muslim friends to this day, and though they are great people, one rule of thumb I abide by is to never talk about what they think about Jews in general. For example, I remember my high school history teacher, as much as I miss her, telling us that it's okay to insult and make fun of Jews because "Jews always think they are superior to every race, and deserve to be "humbled"".

As much as I think Israel deserves criticism like any other country (for example, Israel is a democratic state, so Israelis can't use the Iran card by saying that people like Smotrich or Ben-Gvir were forced unto them, meaning a significant chunk of the Israeli population truly agree with these people), I often understand why they think that criticism of Israel is sometimes masked antisemitism, because according to opinion polls:

1. A very large majority of MENA respondents (around 74-82%) believe that "Jews have too much control over the world", as per the ADL.
2. Pew Research polls show that over 90+% of MENA respondents have highly unfavorable views of Jews, this isn't limited to Arab nations only, as this poll shows that 96% of Indonesians have an unfavorable opinion of Jews as well.
3. Only 16% of MENA respondents recognize the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, with one third of respondents believing the deaths were exaggerated.
4. A large majority of MENA respondents believed that "Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars", or that "Jews were behind 9/11". Even now, I sometimes see on random comments on Tiktok and Instagram that Jews were behind Charlie Kirk's death, JFK's assassination, Coronavirus, and even the recent Hantavirus (like this Iranian studies researcher in Canada posted on Twitter).

These kinds of pervasive beliefs is why it's very difficult to establish peace within the Israel-Palestine conflict, and how these beliefs can also go the other way around by further radicalizing Israelis to the right and adopt an even harder siege mentality against other people.

Even if say, this negative sentiment is caused BY the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and yes, while it is normal to distrust a country that you went to war with (e.g., the Irish still harbor lingering distrust for the English, the Chinese still hate the Japanese, etc.), I'd frankly say that the hate Jews receive is a lot more sinister because:

1. Hatred against Israel/ the Jews in general is something that tends to persist even during peacetime. You don't need to have to go to war with Israel to believe that the Jews were behind "X" disaster or world-changing event.
2. Related to the above point, while most countries hate a certain country due to historical friction (e.g., the Japanese colonized Korea), hatred of Israel/Jews can be because of historical friction AND current day conspiratorial sentiment (I hate Israel because of what they did to the Palestinians in 1948, and also because I believe they were responsible for "X" recent event).

Imagine saying, "I love black people, but I don't really think they were enslaved and even then, it was probably just a handful and a majority were free. I think they bring this up too much so they can get people like Obama in power." Nobody is asking to be completely tolerant of Jews, but I'd say they at least deserve respect by recognizing the most horrible event that happened in their history actually existed.

Note that none of these excuse how Israelis think of Arab countries too, as this negative sentiment also goes the other way around, but even then I don't think mainstream Israeli Jewish society has the same level of conspiratiorial thinking their Arab Muslim neighbors have towards them.

That's basically the core of my hesitation. While I believe Israelis should pursue peace and not think of depopulating the West Bank as a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I understand that it's also hard to do so when the neighboring Egyptian or Syrian next door thinks Mossad/the Jews were behind yet another minute thing they don't like. For the most-hardened pro-Palestinians out there, if your utopian future where Israeli Jews "just leave" does happen, do you really want these Jews to return living among people who think about them this way?

So yeah, in conclusion, the world is cruel, lol. This wasn't meant to be discussing Israeli or Palestinian policy. It just comes from a guy who's tired of yet seeing another Tiktok comment going like, "Yeah, but the 🧃actually planned this, don't cha know?" 🥴

After the Russian datacenter got bombed, I've been experiencing more civil debates with reasonable people who are clearly busy and not dedicating their entire lives to opinions about Israel and Palestine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/oct/13/ukrainian-strikes-russian-datacentres-online-disinformation-bots

45%. That is the percentage of British adults who agreed that Israel treats Palestinians “like the Nazis treated the Jews.” And this is not just Britain getting weird. In 2026 Pew has unfavorable views of Israel at 69% in Britain, 73% in Germany, 75% in Italy, 76% in the Netherlands, and 78% in Spain and Sweden. Israel is getting REALLY unpopular in countries that have traditionally been pretty important to Israel. Campaign Against Antisemitism

Now, what percentage of Israelis would ACTUALLY support actual ethnic cleansing of Gaza? By that I mean forcing Palestinians who DON'T want to leave out of Gaza permanently, not giving somebody $50,000 and a plane ticket and having them voluntarily move to Paraguay or wherever. Tel Aviv University actually asked this and 62% of Jewish Israelis supported removing Gazans “including by force and military means” in March 2025, and 54% still supported it in July. Faculty of Social Sciences

There is no identical 2026 poll, so this next part is my math, not a poll result. Support for “voluntary” emigration among Jewish Israelis is still about 73%. In the two Tel Aviv polls, adding the words FORCE/MILITARY MEANS knocked support down by 9 points and 20 points. Split the difference and you get 73 - 14.5 = 58.5% of Jewish Israelis. Once you include Arab Israelis, who overwhelmingly oppose it, my best guess is right around 50% of Israel as a whole. Call it 45-55% Ribonut

While Israel is a democracy, democracies do NOT automatically do whatever 51% of the population wants. Politicians can look at a majority and basically say, No. You people are dumb as rocks. If we actually do this we get sanctioned, lose allies, lose investment, get boycotted by universities/companies/NGOs, maybe start getting treated like South Africa was treated in the 1980s, and it would be an enormous self-inflicted wound.

BUT! That argument works a lot less well if ten years from now Israel is already getting all of those consequences anyway. This is the part I think is potentially dangerous. Britain, France and Canada are already moving into actual sanctions on settlement-linked trade/people, and Britain and Israel just had a fairly serious diplomatic fight over it. Given the direction of Western public opinion, I don't think broader Israeli sanctions sometime in the next decade are remotely science fiction anymore. Reuters

So imagine Israel in 2035. Half the Western world already treats it like a pariah. There are serious sanctions, divestment, boycotts and cultural isolation. Israelis have already spent ten years being told they are committing apartheid/genocide/ethnic cleansing whether they actually expelled the population of Gaza or not. Then an Israeli politician says, “We can't forcibly remove the Gazans. Think what that would do to our relationship with Europe.”

And a majority of Israelis gets to answer: What relationship with Europe?

That does NOT mean Israel is going to ethnically cleanse Gaza. I don't think that follows _automatically_ but what IF (conditional statement) one of the strongest arguments for NOT doing something that a large percentage of Israelis already appear willing to do is the international price. If Israel someday finds itself already paying most of that price, that restraint gets weaker.

I know how much hate there is for each other on both sides of the table, I myself cant really talk for the israelis/jews but i can talk about how i feel as a Palestinian American, i was born and raised in the US. I use to go to protests as a kid all the time in New York and obviously at the time i didn't really understand what was going on or what i was there for i was just a kid. When i would go visit my family in Palestine id go through the borders and have to sit for hours and hours just to be let through and i was definitely terrified of the huge guns the Israelis carried but nothing ever happened to me or my family so i never really thought too much about it, at the time i probably just thought they were Palestinian as well and not a different country that was at war with us.

The stories were what really made me fear them, id hear stories about how the soldiers would kidnap people in the middle of the night or how they would kill you if you were left alone. There was one time i went to pray in one of the mosques in Jerusalem, i remember i was in the back with all the other kids playing around with the rolled up carpets, i crawled inside one of them and got stuck and i was crying, everyone else left because it was prayer time and all their parents were calling them, i was still there crying and asking for help, one of the older ladies came up to me and thought i was goofing around and she told me that if i didn't get out of the carpet she would call the soldiers on me and have them take me away. I was so scared i literally peed myself. Eventually my mom came to help me out and it just became a funny story we laughed about. But tbh ever since then i was deathly afraid of the IDF.

As a kid I was always grateful i got to live and grow up in America because it was a free country and i didn't have to be afraid of the IDF. Israel and Palestine was always a discussion though in our household and even at school where most of my classmates were Arab and Muslim and a large majority being Palestinian as well. I never realized that my country would be such a huge topic in the world when i grew up, it is literally all over social media, on billboards, in many many memes and in almost every political discussion. The reason I'm making this post though is because i want to talk about how i feel about the amount of hate that has been going on. Government aside i want to talk as a person, just a girl who grew up in America and happened to be Palestinian and Muslim, I grew up being hated on from both sides, i was confused about religion, and i was confused why people hated me so much. its just so weird that the fact that i just AM Palestinian will give people so many thoughts about me as a person, to one I'm a terrorist to another I'm homophobic to another I'm racist and so on, even though I'm NONE of these things, I've never had a hateful thought about a group of people the way people do about me, even when i see Israelis living in Israel all i can think is i wonder what its like on the other side. When i graduated high school and went to college i took off my hijab and i didn't tell people I was Palestinian, its not that i feared what people would think i just wanted to see if i was treated differently, and i was people weren't afraid to approach me and talk to me, not every discussion had to be political and i got to live normally.

Whenever i load up Tik tok its always some stupid bullshit. After the presidential election so many people came online to hate on Palestinians for voting 3rd party and just decided that we weren't worthy of being cared about anymore, i never understood what these people expected from us. We see our families dying back home and they expect us to vote between two corrupt parties who want nothing but to hurt us. Same with PRIDE, they HATE us because they think that we would kill them for being gay when btw I've seen plenty of Palestinian girls kissing each other. Everyone just groups everyone into these categories its just so unfair, people will form opinions about you without even knowing you, and not only Palestinians but Israelis too, so much hate online towards Israelis, have you ever thought that there might be a young person who happened to have been born in Israel or their family moved to Israel, they were just born there, and this is why both sides hate each other so much they grow up being told the other side hates them, they hear stories and see the media and now there's just more and more hate. I'm not going to act like i know how to solve this issue, but I'm just so depressed and tired from all the hate that's always being spewed around. Some of us are just people who grew up and want our people to stop dying, some of us are tired of the government representing us as a whole. I wish i knew if any other people felt this way but unfortunately i don't i can just speak for myself.

I am not anti-Israel even a little bit, but the settlers are out of hand. The issue of settler violence (and it is indeed violence) has been a curious subject to me for many years and it’s always rubbed me wrong. Nowadays it appears to be worst than ever, and it’s impossible to defend. With all the very negative attention on Israel I find it hard to comprehend how the Israeli citizens have not rose up, somehow, to put pressure on the government to end the occupation and expansion in the West Bank?

If these settlers are indeed a fringe group, then why are they not stopped by applying extreme pressure to the government to put an end to it? Riot, protest, do whatever of it really is a practice not commonly accepted by Israeli citizens. Show a meaningful sign. I’m starting to believe it’s largely, quietly, actually okay with your average Israeli. Normal, stable, logical people need to be able to understand the scope of what they’re truly supporting, and in turn what Israel is truly trying to accomplish.

You guys are doing too much. WTF is actually happening over there? When people are seeing this horrible shit with their own eyes you can’t just keep making the excuse that these people (settler trash) are just outliers. Put them in check or own that you’re good with it, can’t be both.

As I am trying to find answers to what could end this conflict, which, imho, is at the heart of and representative of the worst divisions in current human struggles, without wanting a result that includes mass expulsion or genocide, I would love to hear from supporters of Palestinian statehood where they see constructivity in the activism and the rhetoric against Israel.

I am well aware that there is substantial support for Palestinian statehood that is not MEANT to be solely anti-Israel, but I don't find substantial support for arguments and views that could effectively counter or make up for the overwhelming, purely ANTI-Israel sentiment.

Anyone who wants a sustainable two-state solution would need to present a view according to which peaceful Palestinian statehood is also a possible solution.

But how can something be a lasting solution, or ever be possible, if the support for it is obviously based on wanting Israel punished or gone or converted into an Arab dominated Islamic state?

I hear vastly more arguments that negate wanting peace by shifting all blame on Israel and "colonialism" and arguing "Jews don't belong, only Arabs do", and that whatever is argued in defence of Israeli actions must be untrue and sinister. Any view based on such arguments or arguments based on such views inherently excludes wanting coexistence with any zionist entity.

Furthermore, the insistence on accusing Israel's of genocide for her war against Hamas and other terrorist groups is one of the most irreconcilable, yet most supported arguments on the side that calls itself "pro"-Palestinian. This "argument" wouldn't even help the Palestinian cause if it were valid, as it presents Israel with the dilemma of either quitting the fight for her existence or working towards a terrible reality where genocide is no longer abstract.

I do know of Palestinians and supporters of Palestinian statehood who argue in favour of coexistence, and refrain from presenting irreconcilable arguments against Israel's existence.

I can count them on one hand.

Perhaps someone here can help me find more, and more importantly, tell me where their support hides?

I've been trying to understand something about Israel's borders, particularly its northern borders with Lebanon and Syria.

My question is not why Lebanon and Syria refuse to recognize Israel's borders, or why the countries have not signed peace treaties. I'm asking why Israel itself has not clearly and unilaterally stated the exact borders it claims as its own, independently of whether its neighbors accept those claims.

For example:

• Israel and Lebanon have the Blue Line, but the UN explicitly states that it is a withdrawal line, not a final international border.
• The Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shuba Hills are disputed. Lebanon claims them as Lebanese territory, while Israel has historically argued that the Shebaa Farms are Syrian rather than Lebanese. Israel does not necessarily claim sovereignty over these areas itself.
• On the Syrian side, Israel explicitly extended its law to the Golan Heights in 1981, effectively annexing the territory, but it has not established a mutually agreed final border with Syria.
• Israel has also maintained military positions in areas beyond the 1974 disengagement lines in Syria, citing security concerns. However, military control or a demand for a buffer zone is not necessarily the same as claiming sovereignty over the territory.

What I find puzzling is this: Why doesn't Israel simply publish an official statement or map specifying which territories it claims as sovereign Israeli territory, which territories it recognizes as belonging to Lebanon or Syria, and which areas it merely wants to control for security reasons?

It could make these declarations unilaterally, even if Lebanon and Syria rejected them.

Egypt and Jordan eventually signed peace treaties with Israel that established their international borders. Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula as part of its peace treaty with Egypt, while the status of Gaza was dealt with separately. The peace treaty with Jordan established the international border but did not resolve the status of the West Bank.

So I understand that peace treaties and final borders are not the same thing as unilateral territorial claims.

My question is specifically about Israel's own position: Is there an official Israeli map, law, government declaration, or other authoritative document that defines the full extent of Israel's claimed sovereign territory along its borders with Lebanon and Syria, including any territory it considers disputed or potentially part of Israel?

If no such comprehensive declaration exists, why not? Is the ambiguity deliberate, or is there a legal, historical, or diplomatic explanation for it?

I'm interested in official documents and expert explanations rather than speculation about Israeli intentions.

The Arab Republic of Egypt. The Syrian Arab Republic. The Kingdom of Saudi [Arab]ia. The Islamic Republic of Iran. Islam is constitutionally established as the state religion in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, the Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, the UAE, and Yemen. The Jewish State of Israel seems to fit right in.

The crescent and star flies over Turkey, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. These lands were not always Arab or Muslim. Arab armies conquered Egypt, the Levant, Persia, Mesopotamia, and North Africa to spread Islam by the sword. Conquest brought empire, Arabization, and the spread of Islam. Other ethnicities and religions were relegated to second-class dhimmis forced to pay jizya, simply because they were not Muslim. They lived under a religious hierarchy they could not challenge on equal terms. The record includes persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, and genocide.

Amazigh cultures faced Arabization. Assyrians suffered persecution and displacement. Recently, Saddam Hussein’s Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds was genocide. The list goes on and on...

Ancient Jewish communities across Arab countries were persecuted, expelled, or driven into near-extinction.Roughly 800,000 Jews, including my family, were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries, losing their homes and property.

Yet left and right wing nut jobs and Islamists have all come together to call Jews colonizers and Israel an ethno-state. Yet, Israel is one of history’s most successful decolonization projects. An indigenous people returned to its ancestral homeland, restored its sovereignty and rebuilt its national life after centuries of exile and persecution. That is national liberation, not colonialism.

You cannot ignore Arab and Islamic conquest across an entire region while declaring Jewish self-determination uniquely illegitimate. This is not about blaming every Arab or Muslim, or denying Palestinian rights. It is about applying one standard to everyone. Jewish national liberation is being singled out for condemnation in a region shaped by bloody conquest and expansion.

I expect some readers may misconstrue this post or attribute views to me that I do not hold, but this is something I've been thinking about and would like to discuss here. To be clear, I neither support nor justify Hamas's actions, and I believe Israel was justified in seeking to neutralize Hamas after October 7. That position is entirely compatible with understanding why Gazans might be afraid to stand up to Hamas.

It took me a while to feel empathy again for Palestinians again after October 7, especially those in Gaza. Knowing that Hamas had won the 2006 election, and knowing that many Palestinians hated Israelis or Jews, made that very difficult. However, one video by Lama Dalloul changed something for me. It helped me see their fear and vulnerability, and reminded me that empathy for them does not require forgiveness or leniency for Hamas. It was this video:

Lama Dalloul (لمى دلول) "I feel disgusted by what happened on October 7, 2023... Living here doesn't mean that I support what happened... I am not your enemy, and I never was... All I am asking for is help to get out of here."

For some reason, this video reached me in a way that nothing had for a while. It reminded me that there are Palestinians who do not support Hamas or want Israel destroyed. Some pro-Palestinian activists and anti-Zionists may judge me harshly for struggling to feel empathy for Palestinians. However, there are valid reasons as to why it can be difficult: repeated violence against Israel, rejection of peace by Palestinian leaders, and the antisemitism that is common in pro-Palestinian spaces and amongst Palestinians themselves. Those experiences left me disillusioned and distrustful.

I can no longer find the original video on her TikTok, so I think she may have deleted it. I don't remember exactly when she posted it, but I watched it shortly afterward and have since found a copy elsewhere online. Months later, other videos surfaced of her giving speeches that directly contradicts her earlier sentiments. Here are those videos and her statements:

Lama Dalloul (لمى دلول) who, in September 2021 while studying at the Sakina Bint Al Hussein Secondary School for Girls (مدرسة سكينة بنت الحسين الثانوية للبنات), delivered a speech stating, "What is taken by force won't return except by force; just keep fighting."

In April 2022, representing the school's media committee, Lama Dalloul whitewashed terrorist Ahmad Manasra, suggesting that Israel shot him for no reason. She also made false claims about Israel deliberately destroying schools since 1948.

Some pro-Israel and Zionist figures on social media cited these earlier videos as grounds to question her sincerity. They argued that she had been dishonest and two-faced, and that her condemnation of Hamas and October 7 was merely an attempt to gain sympathy and help leaving Gaza. I agree that we should scrutinize what we see and think critically, but I am not convinced these videos establish that her later condemnation was insincere.

I may never know her true feelings or intentions, and I cannot rule out the possibility that she was being deceitful or disingenuous. However, those earlier videos were recorded in schools operating within an educational system heavily influenced by fundamentalist Islamist ideology. In such an environment, openly challenging Hamas or contradicting prevailing political narratives could carry severe consequences. Refusing to conform to ideological expectations might have jeopardized her future, endangered her family, or even put their lives at risk. I believe this may explain the apparent contradiction in her statements. As Hamas’s authority weakened and its grip on Gaza became increasingly precarious, she may have felt sufficiently secure to express opinions she had previously been compelled to suppress.

This may be controversial, but as a Jewish person, I have wondered what I would have done as a non-Jewish German living under Nazi rule. Would I have risked my life to save Jews? I would like to believe so, but honestly, I am not sure I would have had that courage. Fear might have led me to focus on surviving and hope that things would eventually change. That would not make my silence harmless, but it would distinguish fear from approval. To be clear, I am not equating Hamas with Nazi Germany; I understand the restrictions under Rule 6. I am simply drawing on a hypothetical connected to my own people's history to consider how fear can constrain someone's choices under an oppressive regime. When I put myself in Gazans' shoes, I find it difficult to demand courage that I cannot confidently say I would possess myself.

I feel this conundrum gets to the crux of what makes the Israel-Palestine conflict so complicated. I want Gazans who oppose Hamas to speak out and rise up, but I cannot ignore what doing so might cost them or assume that I would be brave enough to take that risk myself. I may never know whether Lama was sincere, but that uncertainty does not erase the empathy her video helped me recover. I remain Jewish and a staunch Zionist, and I still believe Hamas must be dismantled. But I can hold those convictions while recognizing that some people living under its rule may simply be trying to survive.

This the Gazan population pyramids vs deaths (civilians and militants) in the Gaza war, based on official Gaza MoH (Hamas-controlled) data releases:

https://cf.preview.redd.it/fatalities-in-gaza-since-october-7-2023-by-age-gender-and-v0-q4bz5ylbc4rh1.jpeg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=efa23d28f368f70b2700820174484894c140666a

https://cf.preview.redd.it/gaza-war-death-share-by-age-and-gender-v0-c7wnefbnhhrh1.jpeg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=01c33d92f8e9d6f0e31bcb694fe5c1ee985c7b49

data source: https://data.techforpalestine.org/api/v3/killed-in-gaza.csv

This is non-violent mortality, from the same source:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HTeMDzDWwAApCs5?format=png&name=900x900

Data source: https://www.moh.gov.ps/portal/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Annual_Mortality_Report_Gaza_2025_EN.pdf

tl;dr

• Women and males under 15 are under-represented in violent mortality data

• Males are over-represented, with a peak in the 15 to 40 age group, aka fighting-age males

• There is no excess non-violent mortality compared to pre-war levels

• Gaza maintains a very high birth rate and its population has increased during the war

In other words, no indiscriminate killing, no creation of conditions calculated to exterminate a population or destroy its reproductive capacity - no genocide.

(Btw you can do the same exercise with Oct 7th victims. You'll find pronounced excesses of violent mortality among young women. Oct 7th was a genocidal attack, which shows up very clearly in the data.)

To reiterate: this is Hamas' own data. It does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Due to this data's mixed nature, large excess male mortality in the 15 to 40 age brackets is suggestive of militants KIA.

(Because Israel does distinguish between civilians and combatants in its data, we can re-run the Oct 7th calculation including only civilians killed. If you do that, you see even more prounced peaks of excess mortality among you adults, especially women: Nova attendees.)

"Genocide does not depend on the numbers killed" is a common retort. But genocide must consist of something. The genocide claim has become a god-of-the-gaps argument: it takes refuge where we can't yet illuminate exactly what happened, because where we can, we don't find evidence supporting it.

Meanwhile, the countervailing claim that Israel pursued a war to destroy the Gazan militias and liberate the hostages, taking significant care to spare civilian lives where possible, is easily borne out in the data.

i’m a left-leaning palestinian and i’m also a christian.

lately, i’ve been so annoyed and disgusted by the left, especially now with the ohio governor election happening (i live in ohio).

the election is between amy acton (democrat and jewish) and vivek ramaswamy (republican and hindu-indian). white supremacists are literally calling this election “the death of ohio” since both of the candidates aren’t “white”.

earlier this month, nick fuentes (white supremacist guy who literally jokes about the holocaust and makes antisemitic comments, it’s literally part of his personality) endorsed amy acton because he views republicans as “traitors” for allowing non-whites to be republican candidates and he would rather vote for the enemy (democrats) directly because “traitors are worse than enemies”.

but leftists are twisting this and saying that nick fuentes endorsed any acton because she’s white. literally an antisemite who jokes about the holocaust. how is she white at all to him? and to add on to that, amy acton is a jewish person from bexley. bexley a suburb in columbus, ohio that has a significant jewish population and was built because white people were redlining jews from their neighborhood. jews were literally not allowed to live in white neighborhoods.

but whenever people point out that she’s jewish and not “white”, they are met with backlash. “omg she has fair skin and caucasian features and yada yada”, jews including ones with “fair skin and caucasian features” were literally genocided in europe because they were not seen as “white” aka european.

so these same people that claim to care about racism literally ignore minorities when they talk or ask for empathy.

as an arab christian i’ve had similar experiences here. there’s a coptic church here that has an egyptian festival and i spread awareness of it and i try to get people to buy things because there’s this egyptian community called the zabbaleen that collects trash and turns it into organic waste for their animals, jewelry, bags, etc. they live in bad conditions and are very oppressed in egypt so this is their only source of income. i posted about it on facebook and i had people saying “no i don’t believe christians are oppressed”, “is the church built over native american graves”, etc.

but dare you talk about muslims and islam you are seen as a bigoted islamophobe. islam a religion that doubles down on christian conservatism. that religion is totally 100% fine to leftists. but christianity isn’t. i get leftists that are like “fuck all religion all religion is fake”. im not talking about those leftists. i’m talking about the leftists that say christianity and christians are evil but they don’t say the same thing about muslims.

so to american jews who feel that they don’t belong to either party i am right there with you. i think this is relevant to this subreddit because many antizionists here don’t try to understand the jewish side, they only want to hear themselves talk. its very similar to what leftists do to minorities here.

I do not understand Israeli society.

Channel 14 and many other media outlets are disparaging and vilifying Netanyahu and Yoseph Haddad, a potential future member of the Knesset, accusing them of helping organizations evacuate children with heart conditions from Gaza and provide them with medical treatment. Their headline reads: “Have the Hasbara nationalists revealed their true colors?”

In response, Yoseph Haddad posted a statement on Twitter in which he said the following:

This was a segment we had previously filmed for the Save a Child’s Heart organization as part of our previous work with i24NEWS. The purpose of the segment was Hasbara. I presented the organization as an Israeli international humanitarian organization that saves children with heart conditions around the world. I did not promote the organization. I was promoting the amazing Israeli Hasbara. This was merely a PR operation on Israel’s part.

I do not understand how the two political sides in Israel can attack each other so viciously and use something like this as an argument. After all, such an act should be a source of pride and moral, not shame and treachery.

How close to a moral abyss has Israeli society come if such arguments are already considered legitimate in Israel, and good deeds like these provoke such outrage and disappointment among the public—or are even viewed in such a negative light?

"During the more than 80 days [in Netzarim, Gaza] we were there, my brigade killed 160 to 170 people. Only one man was suspected of carrying a weapon. No one saw the weapon."

We collaborated with Der Spiegel to publish testimonies from ten soldiers who served in Gaza. Here are some excerpts from their testimonies:

NAZA-300: Up to 300 Civilians Authorised to be killed as Collateral Damage

"When it came to high-ranking officers, several hundred civilian casualties were allowed for a certain attack. I remember the case of Ibrahim Biari, the Hamas commander in Jabalia. [...] A few hours before the attack on October 31, 2023, our commander gathered us all around and told us that the chief of staff had decided to actually attack the place and it was potential for collateral damage of 300 civilians. The attack was eventually carried out."

Rules of Engagement:

"Someone reported that there was a Hamas spotter on the roof of a building. A drone was sent there, and the pilot said: 'This person is hanging laundry.' An officer replied: 'Palestinian men don’t hang laundry. He must be a spotter.' The drone pilot said again: 'No, he’s standing with his back to us and hanging laundry.' Then the officer of the tank unit that was part of our combat force said: 'I have a clear shot. Can I fire?'

The commander asked: 'Can you see the spotter?' By then, he was definitely a spotter, a 'Tatzpitan.' The commander gave the order to fire.' About 20 minutes later, ambulances raced to the building and began evacuating the wounded and the dead. A little later, I saw a report on an Israeli news website: Palestinians claim that 12 members of a family have been killed.

That’s how it’s always phrased: 'claim.' And I thought: that was us."

Human Shields:

"While I was on duty in Rafah, I witnessed the use of human shields, known as "mosquitoes.” I saw two or three of them: young Palestinian men clad only in shoes and underwear, blindfolded and with their hands bound. In the houses that served as our camps, music from the radio was constantly blaring so that they couldn’t hear anything. They were sent ahead into tunnels and houses, and during their missions they had to wear Israeli military uniforms and GoPro cameras."

Retroactive Incrimination:

Whenever people are killed or injured, the army’s first response is to try to link them to Hamas. That’s because saying the people killed were Hamas terrorists looks better in the eyes of the world. We call this process 'retroactive incrimination.' [...] In the case of the attack on journalists at [the Nasser] hospital, the first [the IDF's] statement said that six Hamas terrorists had been killed. It said the target was military and posed a threat to the soldiers. The soldiers referred to it as a 'Hamas camera,' because Hamas could use it to see everything happening nearby. Their aim was to take out cameras like that. But the Reuters cameraman they targeted was not a terrorist. They killed a legitimate journalist."

Destruction of Buildings:

"Is one building the tallest in our sector? We destroy it because it could pose a threat. But then the next-tallest building becomes the tallest, and so it goes on until everything is destroyed. At first, we were told to destroy individual buildings. Later, we were assigned an entire area"

"When we used civilian homes as a base, we were often told to set the house on fire as we withdrew. That didn’t destroy the building completely, but it made it uninhabitable. We understood that the point was to prevent the residents from returning."

Full article

I listened to today's episode of The Daily (October 12, 2026) featuring the creators of the documentary NAZA. While I haven't seen the film itself, listening to the filmmakers' rhetoric and how the interview was handled left me feeling like the discussion missed the mark.

Specifically, Rachael Abrams' pushback felt like softballs—largely relying on pointing out that "Israel denies this." That kind of default response isn't hard pushback because, naturally, an official entity is going to issue denials. By keeping the friction that superficial, it essentially played right into the hands of anyone watching with their mind already made up against Israel, making it very easy for critics to write off the defense entirely.

The conversation avoided much more intricate, substantive pushback points that could have been brought to the table. For example, based on the rhetoric used in the interview itself:

* Safeguards vs. Intent: The filmmakers discussed targeting protocols and estimation tactics. But the very existence of those safeguard frameworks and commander sign-offs suggests an institutional effort to minimize harm—which cuts directly against the loose and unearned application of the word "genocide," an accusation thrown around despite targeting frameworks existing precisely to avoid indiscriminate destruction.
* Unverified Scenarios: When dealing with projected casualty numbers mentioned in the interview (such as high-fatality models for single strikes), there is often a gap in confirming whether those operations actually went through as planned or what the verified outcomes were.
The Strategic Alternative: Critics rarely get pressed on the operational reality that avoiding air campaigns entirely to eliminate civilian risk would necessitate door-to-door ground sweeps, resulting in a catastrophic spike in military deaths for the defending side.

Did anyone else feel like this interview was biased or structurally weak in its pushback? What am I missing here regarding how these interviews are framed?

Okay, before I get more in-depth, I've only known one Palestinian out of my fellow co-ideologues who genuinely appreciates Jewish history and the Jewish cultural connection to the land because, to her, you cannot neglect the fact that archaeological evidence of ancient Jewish civilization is embedded throughout Israel/Palestine. Out of all my other Palestinian peers, they either recognize this historical connection but don't particularly want to discuss it, or they outright refuse to acknowledge it and claim that much of the archaeological evidence is fabricated by the Zionists to legitimize Jewish claims to the land (They also don't like Western Academia for this very reason). In the case of my friend that I've previously mentioned, she sees the Jews as her own flesh and blood and has made this extremely clear to our Jewish friends in our social circle.

She's a proponent of the idea of a 1SS (Does not even want to call it Palestine), but specifically one in which Jews, Samaritans, Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, Druze, and Bedouin would serve as the collective gatekeepers of the Holy Land due to their shared Levantine heritage. Even though Arabic is her first language and she's a practicing Muslim, she wants a nation where Hebrew and Arabic are both recognized as national languages of this proposed 1SS. She also wants the region's various ethnoreligious and ethnocultural communities to have their identities, traditions, historical narratives, and cultural institutions constitutionally protected, rather than everyone assimilating into a single overarching Arab or Jewish national identity.

Her opinions are very different from those of her family, who wish for all Jews to leave the Holy Land and want to "Un-Judaize" al-Quds (Jerusalem) in order to restore the land to what they perceive as its former Arab glory. I, as a leftist, fundamentally disagree with this because, to me, it just screams another form of ethnonationalism and cultural erasure, except this time directed against Jews rather than Palestinians.

As a leftist, I don't believe in collective vengeance (unlike some of my fellow co-ideologues who believe that a group with less systemic power is justified in seeking collective vengeance against those they perceive as their oppressors), and as a lover of Levantine history, I find the idea of making the region culturally homogeneous and exclusively Arab to be fundamentally no different from what certain Israeli Jewish nationalists advocate when they seek to Judaize the entirety of the Holy Land at the expense of Palestinian Arab history, culture, and national identity. In both cases, you're essentially attempting to establish the cultural dominance of one ethnonational group over another, rather than recognizing that the region has historically been home to multiple peoples whose identities, traditions, and collective memories are deeply intertwined with the land.

Academically speaking, the historical presence of ancient Israelites and Jews in the region is well established among historians and archaeologists, regardless of their political positions on the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The archaeological and textual evidence for ancient Israelite and Jewish civilization is extensive, even if scholars continue to debate specific historical narratives, chronologies, and interpretations. Therefore, for Palestinians who wish to erase or deny the Holy Land's Jewish history and material culture, I would argue that this amounts to historical revisionism under the pretext of decolonization and national liberation. I don't believe correcting one historical injustice requires committing another, especially when it involves denying another people's historical existence, cultural heritage, or collective identity.

I know many Palestinians aren't like what I'm describing, and I'm a huge fan of the late Palestinian archaeologist Dimitri Baramki, whose contributions to Palestinian archaeology included excavations of ancient Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sites. In fact, he discovered an ancient synagogue in Jericho and conducted extensive archaeological investigations of the Umayyad palace at Khirbet al-Mafjar (Hisham's Palace). For me, his archaeological scholarship illustrates something I find beautiful about the Holy Land: its history cannot be reduced to any single people's cultural and religious heritage. The region clearly possesses an extraordinarily rich and interconnected history, and acknowledging one civilization's historical presence should not require diminishing or denying the contributions of another.

I also want to emphasize that I don't believe acknowledging Jewish historical connections to the land necessarily legitimizes the actions of the modern Israeli state, just as acknowledging Palestinian Arab history doesn't invalidate Jewish cultural and historical ties to the region. These are separate questions, and I think it's entirely possible to recognize both peoples' historical connections while simultaneously criticizing the injustices committed in the name of their respective national movements.

Furthermore, if we're going to argue that centuries of cultural predominance establish the right of a particular ethnonational group to determine the national character of a territory, couldn't a similar argument be employed by Israeli Jewish nationalists to defend the continued privileging of Jewish national identity over Palestinian Arab identity? Obviously, the historical circumstances and contemporary power dynamics are different, and I'm not attempting to equate the experiences of Israelis and Palestinians. My concern is with the underlying principle that historical or demographic predominance should entitle one people to culturally dominate another.

So, for Palestinians and Arabs who advocate for a democratic 1SS, do you believe that Palestinian self-determination necessarily requires the entire territory to possess an Arab national and cultural character, or would you be comfortable with a future state that recognizes Hebrew and Arabic as equal national languages, constitutionally protects both Jewish and Palestinian collective identities, and preserves the distinct historical and cultural heritage of Samaritans, Druze, and other communities without subordinating any of them to an exclusively Arab or Jewish national framework?

Let's cut the l BS and talk about what's actually happening.

Watching Western leftists in London, Paris, and NYC march with "Queers for Palestine" signs is genuinely mind-blowing. It’s like turkeys holding rallies for Thanksgiving.

Here are the facts:
In Israel, you can be gay, walk down the street without getting lynched, adopt kids, party in Tel Aviv, and live your life under actual democratic law.
In Gaza and the West Bank, being openly gay is a death sentence. Gay Palestinians don't flee to other Arab countries, they run to Israel so they don't get thrown off a roof or murdered by their own families.

Yet you have campus activists and blue-haired progressives aggressively simping for fundamentalist groups that would execute them the second they crossed the border. How completely detached from reality do you have to be?

Look at what’s happening in Europe. France and Belgium didn't want to deal with radical Islam, so they looked the other way for decades. Now you have enclaves in Molenbeek and outside Paris where state law barely applies, emergency services get attacked, and assimilation completely failed.
Instead of waking up to the threat inside their own borders, Western liberals do what they’ve always done: blame the Jews.

Let’s not pretend "Zionist" is just a political critique. It’s the new label for the exact same ancient blood libel. Whenever things go wrong, just point the finger at the Jewish state and act like you're standing on the moral high ground.

Israel is dealing with brutal reality on its borders every single day, while the West is sleepwalking into the exact same mess. If you want to throw your own liberal values down the drain to appease radical ideologues, that’s your problem. But stop lecturing the one country that actually has the guts to defend itself.🇮🇱

I recently watched a video of Netanyahu praising the Iranian soccer team, commentating the Iranian people for their skill and fortitude, making very clear his and Israel’s grievances are with the extreme Islamic government of said society.

Which makes absolute sense.

A full on ground invasion of Iranian territory would be remarkably unpopular and risky especially if there was no group of citizens on the ground actually willing to work with the new regime.

Israel also makes clear to the displaced Persian diaspora(Persian being the ethnic group that’s the clear majority in Iran) that when the Islamic Republic falls they’ll be brought back as the new/old out of touch and often bizarrely looking aristocracy (because of the plastic surgery and hair dye this time not the inbreeding) for their tireless work in pushing America to bomb another middle eastern country and try regime change in Iran again.

Compare that to how westerners liberals and left have increasingly talked about Israelis both in the diaspora and internally.

It’s revulsion and hatred to the Israeli who they’ve decided is a white foreigner from Brooklyn or Poland.

There’s nothing redeemable about the society they say(somewhat maybe reasonably) and thus its deconstruction should be the goal for it.

Any discussion about empowering the more liberal or left wing factions in said society is derided as naive at best actively malicious at worse. The Israeli high arts are boycotted, the Israeli lgbt organizations are cut off, any Israeli who doesn’t come out and say they hate israel is treated as a baby eating demon.

People will often say “Israel doesn’t have the right to exist.” But if it doesn’t, what do you want to happen to all the citizens of the State of Israel? I don’t just mean the IDF and the government, but all 9 million people living there. And it’s not to imply that they want bad things to happen to those who identify as Israeli, but the only time I’ve heard that question be acknowledged was hearing the person say “I don’t care.” But what do other people with that stance think?

Israeli political parties and current election polling

Political parties of Israel: https://www.thepetek.com/parties

Current election polling in Israel: https://www.thepetek.com/polls

The r/Israel election straw poll

In collaboration with The Petek, here are the results of r/Israel's 2026 Election Straw Poll.

426 of r/Israel users voted between 27 and 30 September. The ballots were counted like a real election: 3.25% threshold, then Bader-Ofer.

Charts and graphics illustrating the poll results are available here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelVersusPalestine/comments/1x3cdrm/results_of_risraels_2026_election_straw_poll_with/

The sub's Knesset

Netanyahu bloc 12 · Change bloc 108 · Arab parties 0 (polling average: 50 · 51 · 12)

If this were the real Knesset

• 7 lists, the fewest ever. The record is 8, in 2020.
• No Haredi party. Shas and United Torah Judaism both miss the threshold. Haredi parties have sat in every Knesset since 1949.
• No Arab party. The Joint List and Ra'am both miss. Arab parties have also sat in every Knesset since 1949.
• Likud at 8, its lowest ever. Its previous low was 12, in 2006.
• The Democrats at 40, the most for any list since Labor's 44 in 1992.

Didn't make it

A list needed 14 ballots. The Joint List 11, Religious Zionism 11, Blue & White 10, Ra'am 9, Otzma Yehudit 7, and 9 more lists with 1 to 3. 17 lists got none.

Fine print

• Anyone could vote, so this shows the sub, not the country.
• No connection sent more than 2 ballots.
• The polling average is The Petek's, from 10 published polls (16 to 27 September). It totals 113 seats because lists polling under the threshold are left out.

Full results: https://www.thepetek.com/strawpoll
Poll tracker: https://thepetek.com/polls

Not based on recognised statistical methods. No conclusions about voting patterns or public opinion can be drawn from it. Commissioned and conducted jointly by r/Israel and The Petek. Elections Law, section 16ה‎(ד).

Discusson

r/Israel does not reflect the demographic composition of Israeli society, as the community consists predominantly of diaspora Jews. Furthermore, this poll did not employ scientific sampling methods, and only provides a snapshot of the political preferences of participating users and offers limited context about the subreddit’s political orientation.

r/Israel is frequently characterized as a far-right community aligned primarily with Likud or Otzma Yehudit. The results challenge that portrayal: The Democrats emerged as the largest party, while Likud received limited support and Otzma Yehudit fell below the electoral threshold. These findings highlight the diversity of political opinion within a strongly pro-Israel community and underscore that support for Israel and Zionism should not be conflated with allegiance to the Israeli right.

Source

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelVersusPalestine/comments/1x3cdrm/results_of_risraels_2026_election_straw_poll_with/