Firstly: thank you for the meaningful responses! I understand the hate and aggression on both sides, but … “Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. … it, on itself won’t change anything.

I am not going to comment on anything we’re agreed on. I’m just happy there are many of those :)

Same.

The expression “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” means no double standards. […]

Got it and agree. But … if I wish to take in account what might have happened beforehand — and will wish that for both sides — than that isn’t a double standard, right? E. g. Israel wishes to be safe of those attacks and rockets of the past. So let’s look after that. And want to be safe from settlers who think it’s their birthright to take whatever land they want … so we’ll have an sharp eye on that either. And so forth. That would be okay and single-standard?

Here’s the first point of divergence. Israeli sovereignty is NOT contingent on any of those things. If Israel has the right to be fully sovereign NOW regardless of how it systematically mistreats the non-Jewish population under its control, the same applies to Palestine.

I get your point and it is a valid one. Yet it isn’t written in the constitution of Israel to do this thing to the Palestine people. Yet in the 1988 Hamas-charta article 7 ends with Sahih al-Bukhari’s hadith Muslim 2922, suggesting that the Day of Judgment would not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews. It claims in article 13 that there is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer. It calls in article 20 for action “by the people as a single body” against “a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people” (see the Nova music festival massacre) and so on. And that is not about the past. It is a “goal” to be “gained” in future. That is where my problems lie. A Palestine constitution, which regardless of its past is okay with not proclaiming the slaughter of Jewish people (or whatever other ethnic group) is fine for me.

Of course if Palestine turned out to be an oppressive shitshow, we’d take the side of the oppressed against oppressors.

And so do I with Israel, which under its rightwing government end a Netanyahu whom I don’t deem much better than Trump or Putin. Only: I’d love to see the corrupt government removed not the whole state with all its people.

But national self determination CANNOT be contingent on anything, it is in fact the prerequisite for everything.

A free mans right to lift his fist ends under the nose of every other mens nose … if you get what I mean. If the self determination bases on the elimination of an other party … then this might be a point we’ll find difficult to argue further.

Same principle as before. Any limit you will impose on Palestine MUST be applicable to Israel.

One is in the charter (Hamas) but not — I think — in the constitution (Israel) … correct me if I’m wrong. Yes, Israel has done many unjust things to the Palestine people and that should be pointed out, stoped and prevented for the future. If you want to protest Israel there, then I’m on your side. If you want to speak up for a free Palestine, then I’m on your side too. “If” you want to declare a free Palestine “from the river to the sea”, i. e. without any Israel … then I stand against that, as I stand against Netanyahus current wish (if so, I’m sparse on news atm) to manage the “Gaza problem” by killing or exiling all Palestinians.

I … am still not sure, that that is a double standard of mine, but open to overthink it further (on myself, not here).

And in fact, it is even more applicable to Israel, since Israel has already committed ethnic cleansing (Nakba) and genocide (Gaza).

And those in political or military command should be judged for wrongdoings, military crime, etc. But I don’t claim all Israeli and/or Jews guilty of those crimes. Yet Israel exists and if you say, that therefore a free Palestine should be real to, I’d agree. But again: A Israel with a constitution declaring that it’s neighbours “should be killed – there is no other way”. would be denied to exist from my side immediately. And so I object a Palestine under Hamas-ideology.

Anything that can be alleged of the Palestinians as a potential future intent, Israel is already guilty of.

Then end the guilt and prevent it from continuing, on both sides. Stop the guilty people … but not their whole ethnicity.

The illegality of settlements is a veil. Israel has systematically increased the settlements the last 30 years.

I’ve seen that and objected that. Honestly spoken: If I had lived back then, I would have suggested that the German people, after WWII should be forbidden to return to government positions, military or police (i. e. positions of power) or to own more than they had before 1933 and would have suggested that all the Jews should return to germany and rule over it as theirnew country. To “give” them Palestine … always felt somehow not that right to me. But it is as it is now and as I wrote somewhere else (dunno btw why my answer to you there has been removed), if not all “white people” (European ethnicity)should be abandoned from the US and so forth … yet the “expansion” after the six day war in 1967 feels wrong and if that can be undone for a peace for all people I’d be fine with that. (Even without peace that should be undone, agreed.)

This might not make sense to a German who thinks rules exist to be obeyed; welcome to the Mediterranean. I think so indeed. Yet, I’d stop the rule breaker, rather than killing his whole family. (Of wishing the latter I do not accuse you, but the Hamas.)

Hamas crimes against civilians and against IDF soldiers who surrendered to it, and this includes abduction, are horrific and despicable war crimes. No ifs, no buts.

THANK YOU for that!

Their attacks on active duty IDF personnel engaged in enforcing an illegal occupation are legitimate resistance enshrined in international law.

Yet it is the same Hamas doing both. I would even be fine with the organisation declaring (and following said declaration) to stop the former, whilst continuing the latter. An other organisation doing only the latter and condemning the former would even earn my respect — even if I still may on choosing violence as a tool (see the MLK Quote at the top. I still can see, why some seek this kind of resistance (yet my guess is, that without the Hamas, there would already have been a peace which really earned to be called so. One that benefitted all [civilised] sides ).

To differ is okay … it’s almost always possible to find solutions — if everybody is willing to seek them. We had differreces and maybe still have. But I’m even not sure anymore about that. Yet the key point, in my opinion, is to condemn violence against civilians, be they Israeli or Palestine, Jews or Arabs, religious or not. And I too do condemn every warcrime of Israel against civilians (and I’m sure by now, that there are). Yet let us judge the guilty persons, regardless of the side they’re standing on … but not whole ethnicities or states.