The PLO called for the elimination of Israel as well. That changed after the first intifada and it's the closest we've ever been to peace. This is a different and much more fraught situation, though. I don't expect conciliation on the part of Hamas after this.

Heh, remember when Trump railed against the Fed raising interest rates during his presidency? What a dummy.

Israel, the UK and France invaded Egypt in 1956 after Egypt expropriated the Suez Canal from its French & British owners. Then they fought a war in 1967 to keep it open. The conveyance of European trade through the Suez Canal is a major part of Israel's geopolitical importance.

Netanyahu also stoked the anti-Oslo crazies to the point that Rabin was assassinated. He's more responsible for the current state of the conflict than anyone, period.

Some of the mandatory budget and discretionary non-defense budget can be directly or indirectly linked to military purposes, but regardless, the majority of the budget is social programs.

the supposed chosen children of God literally got given their land after WW2, gave them sympathy, gave them diamonds and global support to promote love, peace and prosperity, then watched them literally turn and slaughter their brothers and sisters next door

Ignoring the borderline antisemitism there, in reality the people of the region were essentially abandoned by the West to fight it out. The Arab League didn't like the results of the UN vote, and so riots broke out and the violence escalated into a war in which the Zionists were victorious against 7 Arab nations. To be clear, I'm not saying it was moral or ethical for the Zionists to settle land that was already inhabited by Arabs in the first place (it wasn't), but that ship had long since sailed by 1948. My point is there was a very serious war over the land and no one was "given" anything. After the war, the Western powers agreed to enforce the 1949 armistice borders, and began supporting Israel materially because they were seen as a counterpoint to Soviet-Arab relations.

It follows that the point of support for Israel has never been "love, peace and prosperity", but a geopolitical calculation, and one that has been wildly successful in maintaining Western hegemony in a region of the world that has never been particularly receptive to Western liberalism. Because of its geopolitical positioning, Israel is under constant threat, as evidenced by the Six Day War, two Intifadas, the bus & cafe bombings of the 90s & 00s, and the frequent rocket attacks of more recent times. Yes, they are under attack because they are unwelcome in the region due to their history of violence against native Arabs, but that doesn't make the fear of Israelis irrational or paranoid - just hypocritical. It doesn't justify the violence, but it does perpetuate it.

And so the clearest route to peace was through the normalization of relations between Israel and its Arab/Islamic neighbors, leading to a gradual detente and eventually a regional consensus. This latest flare-up of the conflict is a major setback in that effort, though, and speculatively, that aspect of it may be intentional on the part of Iran, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.

You have to consider the Tanzimat reforms in the waning Ottoman Empire, specifically the Land Code of 1857 and the Nationality Law of 1869. The Land Code misappropriated much of the tribal land in current day Israel/Palestine to Ottoman administrators, which was later brought under the control of Britain after WWI. Particularly after the Nationality Law, which granted citizenship rights irrespective of religion, the Jewish National Fund was able to purchase and settle that land. Under British rule, the settlement accelerated. It's worth noting that there was massive migration to the Holy Land of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. During the late Ottoman period, 1850 to 1915, the Muslim population doubled (+300k), and the Jewish & Christian populations tripled (+26k and +54k respectively). By the British Mandatory period, the majority of the population in the Holy Land were immigrants.

But anyway, you're right. Although there was always tension between Muslims and Dhimmis, the specifics of the contemporary conflict can't be traced back much further than the late 1800s. Perhaps if the original negotiated Arab homeland consisting of the Arabian Peninsula, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon had been honored, the entire region would be much more stable today. Hard to say what would have happened to the Jews during WWII, though.

Brutal extraction isn't unique to colonialism either. Colonialism is just ancient imperialism with boats.

That said, imperialism has never been moral and we shouldn't excuse contemporary imperialists, just like we'd probably be appalled at the exploits of Julius Caesar during the Gallic Wars if we weren't so far removed from them.

The Romans created the diaspora in the first place. How relevant that is to the modern conflict is debatable. Zionists certainly use the ancient Jewish kingdoms as evidence of their legitimacy.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm explaining that intent matters when considering whether genocide is happening. Hamas clearly has intent, Israel on the other hand? I'm willing to be convinced of course; certainly some officials have made genocidal statements, but I'm not aware of the official policy or stated aims of Israel being specifically genocidal the way Hamas is. Apartheid? Absolutely, and that's bad enough.

Israel has attempted peace multiple times; I respect Arafat & the PLO for compromising and it's a shame what happened with that process. Hamas considers these efforts a "contradiction to its principles" and a "waste of time".

Fetterman is truly touched by his noodly appendage.

Watch YouTube!? Ride a bike!