The problem is majority of Israeli citizens think the government isn't doing enough.
Cue the citizens that protested to stop the aid trucks from going into Gaza. The citizens that protested because the Israeli military arrested (after a lot of international pressure) soldiers that were caught raping Palestinian prisoners. They were protesting for the right of soldiers to continue to rape.
> The citizens that protested because the Israeli military arrested (after a lot of international pressure) soldiers that were caught raping Palestinian prisoners.
The people you're talking about are Israel's far-right. I don't think you can index from them onto the median Israeli's political views anymore than you could reasonably index from a member of Hamas's armed wing onto the median Palestinian.
(A recurring theme in both I/P and MENA conflicts more generally is that political minorities - WB settlers in Israel, for example, manage to wield disproportionate power and induce chaos and strife across the region.)
Might behoove you to know how schooling in that "country" is handled..especially when it comes to Palestinians. Below is an excellent insight as to how this is a "country" wide homegrown effort to raise unhinged cilivians that celebrate the murder of children & women.
Exactly. I replied to the comment above, but a lot of people don't appreciate the right-left divide in Israel is very different to that in other western nations. A leftist in Israel would probably be considered extreme right in some other nations.
I know a fair number of leftists of both Israeli and Palestinian extraction, and I don't really think this is true. The more nuanced and IMO correct appreciation of left-right politics in Israel (and MENA more generally) is that they're flavored but not inherently dominated by ethnonationalist movements that reached their fever pitch in the 20th century, and have slowly been replaced by ethoreligious movements that have substituted declining follower numbers for more extreme activity.
Electronic intifada is propaganda. It is true that there are concerning directions the education in Israel is taking. But a propagandistic education is certainly not an issue in Israel alone, like this articles tries to paint. That is no excuse, but it still remains one-sided propaganda.
I don't know what to tell you. If you think I don't believe that Israel structurally dehumanizes Palestinians, you'd be wrong. But you'd also be wrong in thinking that this is somehow a deviation from the norm; both sides are actively governed by their political extremes, like I said.
You're painting with broad-strokes here which comes off as disingenuous, I presume that's not your intention but it calls into question your understanding of the history between these states being laid bare.
I suggest reading Hamas' 2017 charter in full for proper context.
I think I understand the two pretty well. And I've read both the 2017 and 1988 charters. The funny thing about charters is that you can put anything in them; the IDF's charter[1] is an exercise in frustration for anybody who knows literally anything about how the IDF actually behaves, and so for Hamas.
A stat I came across recently is that over 60% of Israeli's don't support a two state solution - i.e. they don't support the idea of Palestinians having a state.
This also tracks with my travels to Palestine, friends who have travelled more recently, and various videos and article: the right-left in Israel is quite different to the right-left in other Western nations: namely, if you talk to a leftist Israeli, they will also hold strong view against Palestinians.
> A stat I came across recently is that over 60% of Israeli's don't support a two state solution - i.e. they don't support the idea of Palestinians having a state.
This is, critically, a pretty different political position from defending people accused of wartime rape. That doesn't make it a good position, but we shouldn't conflate the two.
As for why: Israelis don't appear to disapprove of a two-state solution any more or less than Palestinians[1]. Both are absolutely committed to the idea that their one-state solution will be supreme.
Two years after the 2005 Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (and the Israeli government evicted Israeli settlers from Gaza), the support in Israel for a two-state solution was 70% in favor.
They were optimistic!
Looking at the long term history of Israel, the left was more optimistic in general about hopes for peace with the Palestinians, while the right more suspected that Arafat never really wanted peace, and was just being sneaky. But let it be noted that the Prime Minister who ordered the withdrawal from Gaza was right-wing Gen. Ariel Sharon, Likud member and previous advocate of settlements everywhere.
After the actions of Hamas in subsequent years, particularly Oct 7, 2023, that hope and optimism was completely eliminated.
Since 2005, Israel has aggressively settled more and more people in the West Bank, to the point where more than 10% of Israel's Jewish population (read: first-class citizens) now live in West Bank settlements, so Israel's right wing has done everything in its power to make a two-state solution less and less practical.
IMO a one-state solution where everyone has equal rights is the only just and reasonable path forward. Like with the dismantling of apartheid, a transition plan will be needed.
The 'withdrawal' wasn't really a withdrawal, was it. There was still a blockade, and IDF's routine 'mowing the lawn'.
Let's not pretend that the 2005 'withdrawal' was a chance for a fresh start for the Palestinians that they floundered. The various negotiations were very one sided, and the offers were also unacceptable.
I think when people say "West", they automatically think US and UK - and given their war crimes in recent history, you do get this sentiment, yes. I suspect, however, that this view has exacerbated and now includes other "western" countries that are silent/complicit in current horrific war crimes.
Oh no, we shouldn't talk about war crimes because the iPhone I'm tapping my words into has some tech from the nation committing those war crimes. I should be more THANKFUL!
> I'd have to fill up my backpack with the heavy camera equipment and carry it around everywhere, which would make photography more labourious and less spontaneous.
I'd recommend looking into a camera such as a Ricoh GR series. Yes, it is an additional cost, so it doesn't solve the 'expense' part of the equation, but you'd get significantly better photos from it than any phone camera, plus it's very compact so wouldn't need to lug around much at all in terms of equipment.
Or something like a Fujifilm XM5 with a pancake lens - this will give you a compact setup, with the flexibility of using different lenses if you wished.
Your comment seems to suggest you support the idea of Iran regime going down?
Yet in the same breath, you criticize Iran for saying that 'US and Israel should cease to exist'.
Given Israel currently has nuclear weapons, Israel is currently committing genocide (helped and funded by the US), the atrocities that Israel have committed over the last 70 years (setting aside the fact that it is an apartheid state, and is an occupying force, continuing to steal Palestinian land to this day), and the fact that the US has killed more innocent civilians in recent history (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) than Iran has...
Why the double standard?
And before I get accused of being a Khamenei supporter (Westerners tend to not like nuance on these topics) - I hate the Iranian regime. I agree there needs to be a regime change. At the same time, I also think there needs to be a regime change in Israel, as no government since it's inception has been for peace - the only PM they had that was doing the bare minimum towards it was killed by an Israeli.
Yes indeed. I picked the first few search results for “usage of the word genocide lately”, assuming that you haven’t bothered to do that yourself, in hope that you’ll spend a few minutes getting educated on a subject you talk about with such conviction.
Hah. "Get educated because I don't like the way you use the word"
From one of the articles you shared:
“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”
Let's see what Israeli leadership have said (a small sample), and then go look at aerial photos of Gaza now, and then tell me who needs to be educated:
Yoev Gallant - Israeli Minister of Defense:
"I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly."
"Gaza won't return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything."
Netanyahu - to members of the Knesset, said that Israel was "destroying more and more houses [in Gaza, and Palestinians accordingly] have nowhere to return", and that "the only obvious result will be Gazans choosing to emigrate outside of the Strip"
In July 2025, Defense Minister Israel Katz instructed the IDF to relocate all Gazans to a "humanitarian zone" in the destroyed city of Rafah, in preparation for an unspecified "emigration plan"
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's repeated invocation of Amalek and the phrase "remember what Amalek did to you".
Finance Minister Smotrich also said, "There are no half measures ... Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat – total annihilation. 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.'"
President Isaac Herzog blamed the "entire nation" of Palestine for the 7 October attack. He added: "It is not true, this rhetoric about civilians being not aware, not involved."
Deputy Speaker of the Knesset Nissim Vaturi wrote that the government was allowing too much aid to enter Gaza and that the IDF should "burn Gaza now".[104] He said that Israel's goal was "erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the Earth." When asked to clarify his statements by Kol BaRama, Vaturi reiterated that Gaza and its inhabitants must be destroyed, saying: "I don't think there are any innocent people there now... If there is an innocent person there, we will know about them. Whoever stays there should be eliminated, period."[106] In 2025, Vaturi called Palestinians "scoundrels" and "subhumans" and called for the adult men in Gaza to be killed.
In this case, it’s the most inefficient genocide anyone has ever seen.
Instead of looking at the crap that comes out of the mouths of this horrible government, look at what actually happened. Israel had everyone rallied up, yet they were not exterminated en mass like you and other commenters are saying.
The death toll in this war is a result of Hamas and their supporters taking advantage of the population to protect themselves and cause people like you to speak against Israel [1].
Love you spouting memes such as “hasbara” instead of responding to the point.
You understand exactly what I mean, yet you try to portray what I said as if I’m alluding to a technicality.
If a nation has the means and intent for genocide, you get a genocide. This is not what it is.
Lastly, I’m not trying to show I’m balanced, and neither are you.
Israel does not commit genocide by any objective metric.
> the fact that it is an apartheid state
And it is not an apartheid state as can be evidenced by the fact that Arabs and other cnthincal minorities, e.g., Druze or Cherkessians, reach highest positions in politics, academic, and private enterprises. You can simply google things like "notable israeli arab judges" and get results that disprove this whole idea of "apartheid".
> and the fact that the US has killed more innocent civilians in recent history (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) than Iran has...
This is strange argument. So, if US did bad things, others should do them to?
> And before I get accused of being a Khamenei supporter (Westerners tend to not like nuance on these topics) - I hate the Iranian regime. I agree there needs to be a regime change. At the same time, I also think there needs to be a regime change in Israel, as no government since it's inception has been for peace - the only PM they had that was doing the bare minimum towards it was killed by an Israeli.
You do not have to be Khamenei supports, it is enough to have double standards. From your own comment it is clear that you see the whole IP conflict without any nuance. For example, you ignore all the injustices jews suffered from the hands of Palestinians even before 1948. So, I will ask the same question you asked:
All the typical “proves” of a genocide based on arguments that make any other war genocide as well, which in turn completely devalues actual genocides that did happen, and desensitizes the public so that when an actual genocide will happen no one will react.
Anyway there's no point arguing with people like you. The evidence is clear. The political rhetoric from Israel is clear. People who actually study genocide are very clear. Israel will "cleanse" Gaza of the "animals" and the West bank and idiots in America will lap up the propaganda and argue about whether its actually a genocide or not.
Why? There are plenty of other wars where previous ceasefires were violated. Hamas themselves refuse to put down their arms, which is also a violation of ceasefire.
> The evidence is clear.
The evidence is not clear.
> The political rhetoric from Israel is clear.
Rhetoric of some people in the government doesn’t mean much. Like any democratic country, you can have elected people who have extreme views.
> People who actually study genocide are very clear.
What are you talking about? The organization of international scholar of genocide where anyone can pay a small fee and be a scholar in the organization? Yeah, this is evidence!!!
> Israel will "cleanse" Gaza of the "animals" and the West bank and idiots in America will lap up the propaganda and argue about whether its actually a genocide or not.
So, it didn’t happen yet, but you already know it will happen?
yeah, not going to entertain genocide denialism in 2026. You can at the least state it's plausible, and I'd take you seriously. The rest of your drivel is a deliberate misreading of my post.
> yeah, not going to entertain genocide denialism in 2026.
Of course you are not going to do it. Because it would require you to get factual, and provide some evidence to corroborate your points, which would be hard.
> You can at the least state it's plausible, and I'd take you seriously.
Are you saying it is possible that the war in Gaza is not genocide?
> The rest of your drivel is a deliberate misreading of my post.
Sure. Better to dismiss the person, than engage in factual discussion.
It's the convenience, for me anyway - why carry around multiple devices, when one can do the job.
For travel photography, I went from carrying around a Sony full frame, to a Fuji XT3, to hoping by iPhone 19-20 that I can sell all my bodies and lenses and just rely on the iPhone.
The Sony felt like a chore - from carrying around a big camera and lens, through to the editing and photo management.
The Fuji was a breath of fresh air - a bit more compact, and the film sims allowed me to cut the editing process out. But there was still lugging around a camera, and then the photo transfer etc.
With mobile phones' improvements in photography, coupled with the endless opportunities for apps, I can't wait to rely on it as my sole camera.
What do you expect the iPhone 19/20 to have that the iPhone 17 doesn't?
The tradeoffs will fundamentally be the same. You're not getting a > 100mm^2 sensor (with the glass lens required to image on it) on the iPhone anytime soon (or anytime ever really, unless the form factor of the iPhone dramatically changes).
The telephoto sensor is already 48 MP on the 17 Pro, so that's a given.
I don't think we're getting a f/1.78 lens on the telephoto anytime soon. The widest aperture the tele's ever had was a f/2 on the 12 Pro, and that was back when the tele was a 2x (52mm equivalent, so not even really tele...). Maybe f/2.4 or f/2.2 (what the ultra wide has)? That'd already be a significant improvement.
The next big upgrades on the ultrawide/tele for the 19/20 generations will likely be larger sensors - they're currently 1/2.55", compared to 1/1.28" for the wide lens. I don't think they can fit three 1/1.28" sensors in there, so plausibly 1/1.7"? But that might mean that effective aperture remains constant.
(and yet none of that will beat an equivalent focal length lens on your XT3)
reply