[flagged]
Bringing this up in 2026 when it's abundantly clear there's zero chance the IDF had no idea about the planning of Oct 7, and didn't just let it happen, means there's no point having a conversation. When it's so well known that Israel is the one who have propped up Hamas.
> In an interview with Politico in 2023, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "In the last 15 years, Israel did everything to downgrade the Palestinian Authority and to boost Hamas." He continued saying "Gaza was on the brink of collapse because they had no resources, they had no money, and the PA refused to give Hamas any money. Bibi saved them. Bibi made a deal with Qatar and they started to move millions and millions of dollars to Gaza."
> “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” - Benjamin Netanyahu
> Gershon Hacohen, former commander of the 7th Armored Brigade and an associate of Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 2019 in an interview: “Netanyahu’s strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.”
The zionist goal is already acheived as i understand it, there is no need to fund zionism. israel doesn't need "funding" to sustain itself either, it's so prosperous on its own, even here on YC you'll see many startups based in Israel.
zionism isn't synonymous with gaza or west bank expansionism, or any act of violence. I keep seeing these types of arguments and i can't help but ponder if you're just repeating some disinformation campaign to prop-up and legitimize the anti-semitic reasoning used by the very same people fighting wars to supposedly prevent it (with some degree of legitimacy).
If you said zionism to enable the concept of a jewish state is reasonable, and even it wasn't historically, it is impractical to fight against it, and that israel has the right to exist. But the recent wars and harm against civilians is abhorrent, then you would be criticizing them in a way that actually makes sense, and can be used to actually do something to stop them. but your (and others') agenda only helps one side, and it is neither palestinians, their plight for justice, nor the side of peace.
If a nation-state, or ethnoreligious group, has rights, then efforts to destroy it would not gain popular support.
Do ethnoreligious groups have a right to survival without suffering genocide? Does the international community, or Security Council, have a duty to prevent genocide, or the extinction of any particular nation-state?
No, it does not. That's not how sovereignty works. nation states' obligations are only towards their own nation. Even honoring of treaties is expected only in so far as it is in the best interest of their nation to do so. There is no grand human coalition that has an obligation to intervene on behalf of the innocent being harmed by wars and genocide. it's a nice idea, but consent of the governed and all. Those people would have to first get their government to consent to participating under organizations like the ICJ.
In simpler terms, for any supposed international community to be valid, similar to governments, it needs the threat of violence to enforce its will. That means you have to volunteer yourself or your children to enforce that community's will. The rest is just details, I'm sure you'd want to have a say in exactly what the agreement is over the specifics of the "international community's" will would be, and therein lies the obstacle.
In the 90's there was some post-soviet political capital and overall good will credited to the US and its allies as a result of a new era of hope and prosperity and all that soft power stuff. That's why bombing Serbia and things like war crimes for milosevich and his pals was a thing. It was NATO, not the international community then. same as Afghanistan. There has never been any actual "international community" that did anything but pass resolutions at the UN. There has never been even so much as a truly international peace keeping force deployed anywhere by the UN.
It all just comes down to whether this supposed community has the right to do anything over other non-participating nations' sovereign real while maintaining any semblance of legitimacy. interference is interference, whether the US is kidnapping a dictator, or bombing one, or assassinating another, it can be done, but not with any legitimacy, and it is usually the US that's the arm that swings the sword.