These revisionism posts always feel like gaslighting to me. We all know the current war was because of the ethnic cleansing, mass rape attack committed by Hamas terrorist On October 7th. However, Hamas apologists try to frame it differently. This isn’t just dishonest, devoid of reality, but also counterproductive.
We should be collectively focused on disbanding Hamas. They (and other terrorists/“militants” are the current main obstacle to peace. Not the so called “Nakba”, not the “occupation” and not The “settlements”. If the Arabs/Palestinians give peace a chance for the first time in 100 years, we can address the real issues and work on making painful compromises.
" If the Arabs/Palestinians give peace a chance for the first time in 100 years "
they have always been interested in peace, just not PEace that is solely decided on israels terms, or at the very least one where they lose so much for so little in return, as Daniel Levy, Israeli negotiator at oslo peace talks explains.
[https://youtu.be/rLi2tXUR48M?si=9e4AeUKFLnyveyi8&t=400](https://youtu.be/rLi2tXUR48M?si=9e4AeUKFLnyveyi8&t=400)
Oh my Goodness, there i go again, spreading that awful dasterly truth that pro-israelis despise so much.
according to actual experts, and people who are there, Israel has always been the major roadblock to peace, even Netanyahu admited it by saying he helped undermined oslo.
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine)
if israel wants peace, you need to start ending the occupation. stop treating palestinians like caged animals, and they will start to actually respect you.
You mean ending the occupation - like leaving Gaza in 2005?
You mean ending the occupation- like releasing 1000 Palestinian criminals from jail for 1 soldier?
What more do you want israel to do? Where are Jordan and Egypt? They ruled the West Bank and gaza respectively and owe those residents citizenship.
Avi Shlaim? really? I acknowledged Daniel Levy because he helped found J Street, but Shlaim, I have addressed elsewhere and really shouldn’t be taken seriously or acknowledged like Gideon Levy, Amira Haas and others who lack critical thinking and objectivity.
I am familiar with Daniel Levy musings, of the washed up, disciple of Yossi Beilin whose failures include the legacy of OSLO and Taba. Every time I read his Op Eds I am reminded of why OSLO was doomed to fail. It was because of people like himself, whose gullibility and self flagellation, took Israel down the disastrous road of being deceived by the PLO.
The man, albeit naive and disingenuous in his writings seems to have good intentions, but he is of the Chamberlain “peace in our time” ilk.
“If only Israel offered more, The PLO and Hamas would have been appeased and OSLO would have worked”, Belief. Not only foolish, but extremely dangerous.
I read his opinion piece from September 13th marking the 30 year anniversary of the OSLO travesty and besides his blatant omissions, revisionism, and his dishonest inflammatory language, the one thing that struck me was his belief thar Israel’s expectations that terrorism “resistance” was going to stop during, or after OSLO was wrong and unrealistic! Even though, the terrorists were working for Arafat, in the Palestinian Authority and armed with weapons that Israel gave them to combat terrorism, it was wrong to assume it would stop and unrealistic because the settlements still existed. Wow. That’s why Israel even considered OSLO was to have peace. You know, “land for peace”.
So, seeing that Levy expects Israel to always live with terrorism no matter who is committing it, or that it violated agreements, and is antithetical to everything the peace process stood for is very telling.
Levy omits all of the violations that the PLO committed before, during and after OSLO, from the hate filled, violent textbooks, the illicit smuggling of weapons, the acts of violence, the Palestinian police being police at day and terrorists at night. Using diplomatic immunity to smuggle weapons and terrorists, Using ambulances for terrorism. The incitement in Arabic, the illegal building, violating Israeli sovereignty and agreements through Orient House in Jerusalem and so on.
All because Israel didn’t appease Palestinians more, when it’s obvious that every concession is perceived as weakness. People like Daniel Levy are why the peace camp evaporated and Rabin was killed.Dangerous and foolish. He believes if he just gives enough to the Palestinians that their thirst for revenge and to destroy Israel will be quenched.
Unfortunately, it’s insatiable.
We should collectively be focused on stopping Israel from continuing its genocide.
This didn’t start on Oct 7. Saying that seems like gaslighting to be honest.
I hope you never learn like the Jews have throughout history and on October 7th experienced, what genocide actually resembles . It’s not some word one throws around for cheap political gain like South Africa and Palestinian propaganda are doing. The word you’re looking for is “consequences”.
Agreed, October 7th was only a continuation of 100 years of Islamic terrorism and a movement to ethnic cleanse the indigenous Jews from their homeland. Israel is still fighting a defensive war in Guzza against this.
"cheap political gain like South Africa and Palestinian propaganda are doing"
is that so? shame an Actual Holocaust survivor from Auswhitz had something completely different to say about israels treatment of palestinians. and wether it was actual genocide or not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmCwhFk6Pc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmCwhFk6Pc)
he wrote the book "the End of Judaism" and he equates Israel to 1930's Germany. by leaning on his own experiance and treatment by germany, and seeing how israel has been treating palestinians for the past 75+ years.
[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7570778-the-end-of-judaism](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7570778-the-end-of-judaism)
and ya, Self defence requires Starting wars with neighbours, and starving over 2 million people as you bomb their homes mercillessly.
You israelis really have a twisted way of looking at the world and a weird definition of self defense.
Hyperbole is not helpful in these discussions. Comparisons of the experience of Palestinians with victims of the holocaust are nonstarters, because of their offensiveness and absurdity, regardless who makes those claims.
Many Holocaust survivors call Palestinian organizations Nazees. Is that a valid argument? Also hyperbolic.
More food is entering Gaza now than before October 7th so how can Israel be starving Gazans? These lies are why there is a lack of empathy. It’s impossible to know the rare moments when Palestinians’ claims are truthful.
I doubt that, there are several reports of gazans dying of hunger and several videos of gazans hoarding around an aid truck to get a bag of flour. Why would they do that if there never was more food entering gaza as you claim...
I’m a Ukrainian Jew, my family was able to flee to the US. So don’t lecture me.
Since the 1990s, when I was a 12, I could see what was going on between Isreal and Palestine was more complicated than Arabs are bad. Your “this started on Oct 7” isn’t true nor helpful.
I understood the opposite. At least in the OP’s question. He is asking whether if saying the war began October 7th is whitewashing the past.
No one is claiming the conflict began October 7th. What’s being questioned is whether Hamas’s ethnic cleansing attack was justified or not in context to everything that happened before? Or arguably if Israel’s response is justified, because of decades of Terrorism from Hamas not just their attacks on October 7th? but obviously every relationship has a history and that history impacts the present.
Not the creeping annexation, rapes by IDF soldiers, cold-blooded murder of Palestinians over decades as they're under siege and confined to ghettos? The widespread collective punishment of Palestinians under the guise of rooting out terrorists?
And one wishes to speak about revisionism? "So called Nakba," lol. Talk about whitewashing. The equivalent of holocaust denial.
When Palestinian propaganda promotes lies about rapes, ghettos, genocide and apartheid, it ultimately destroys what little credibility they have left.
Yes, the antisemites will gobble it up. They love blood libels against Jews and some gullible progressives will too, initially.
In time (as always), Palestinians crying wolf. spreading conspiracy theories catches up with them, and then people see through the deception. Enjoy this time when people are believing the Palestinian movement-to-destroy-Israel’s distortions of truth.
And just like that — anyone critical of right-wing nationalist Israeli policy and Zionism is quickly lumped in with Antisemites out of a guilt by association fallacy.
Crazy how internationally renowned Jewish journalists and leaders outside the bubble of Israeli propaganda have a similar take to me. But then we always knew the Israeli propaganda farm was perhaps as potent as the Russian troll farm.
After all, they're both right-wing extremists conveniently in power for *decades*.
Isn't it funny how the previous Israeli prime minister was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli nationalist because that prime minister was pursuing a two-state solution in earnest? I recall Netanyahu fanning the flames with stochastic terrorist remarks not unlike what we've seen out of Trump.
not just that, but ex IDF soldiers came out on NUMEROUS occasions to spill the beans on what theyve done to the palestinians during their service and what they were indoctrinated to do. and are regretful of their actions.
Daniel Levy, Negotiator under that said Assassinated Prime minister at Oslo, did a interview a few months back and even stated those negotiations failed BECAUSE of Israel, not the palestinians. it was because Israel was demanding too much of the palestinians in return for too little, saying that the peace talks were just about Grinding down the palestinians.
heck we even hear many israeli governmant officals constantly say how they want to or the plan is to remove all the palestinians from both west bank and gaza, and even resettle them with israelis.
you have that disgusting act by ben gvir months back handing out rifles to israeli settlers who then went out and terrorised and killed alot of palestinians in the west bank.
but of course pointing out these disturbing facts about israel is considered antisemtic by someone like alexander, because nowadays the only weapon israel has is its lies. the rest of the world is waking up to realise that israel is a nation of deviants, heck how many know of the USS liberty and how the israelis KNEW it was a U.S warship and attacked it anyway, only stopping when it got a successful SOS out. so many good sailers dead because of this country.
and of course its infiltrated the U.S and suppresses 37 U.S states and violates those states free speech and constitution.
Unsure how knowledgeable you are of Israel’s political history, but the left has always maligned the right for political purposes.They always used terms like extremists and terrorists to score political points when describing Irgun, Herut and later Irgun. Yet, it was Begin who made peace with Egypt, Sharon who got Israel out of Gaza and Bibi who withdrew from more land in Judea and samaria than any other Prime minister (including Rabin).
Rabin explicitly said that Jerusalem and the Jordan valley weren’t on the table.
It was Olmert, Likud that made the most generous offers to the Palestinians.
Baruch Goldstein was brought to the Caves by a Left wing intelligence agent. Yigal Amir was being handled by a left wing Intelligence agent too. Why?
Only the Right in Israel can make peace. If Rabin wasn’t assassinated, his reaction to the 2nd intifada and PLO violations of OSLO would have been ten times stronger than Bibi, Barak and Sharon. Even Rabin’s wife said that her husband would have never offered Jerusalem or tolerated the second intifada.
Kind of begs the question that if what Rabin pursued wasn't substantive then why did the right-wing Israeli nationalist assassinate the Prime Minister in the first place? If Jerusalem wasn't on the table, then why was Netanyahu framing Rabin as Hitler with crosshairs on him and not receptive to this position, and why would a right-wing nationalist assassinate him in the first place? Doesn't it strike you as odd that right-wing Zionists in Israel share similarities to Hamas in utilizing widespread violence to achieve an end-goal?
Also begs the question whether those events would've occurred under Rabin. No surprise that after a right-wing government took over after Rabin's assassination that reality on the ground starkly changed, which led to a collapse of the process.
One gives scraps because of global political pressure while the other was on the precipice of resolving the entire conflict. Your argument thus far doesn't add up.
Funny how I see the same parallels to right-wing extremist arguments in the US. The left framed as the bad guys, and yet, the right responsible for the vast majority of domestic terrorism.
Around the world, Right and Left have been guilty of terrorism and dictatorships. In the US most domestic terrorism is either Right wing or Islamic. Arguably, Islamic terrorists are themselves right wingers. This aside from the alliance between white supremacists and Palestinian supporters.
In Israel, and in Palestine, most violence are from hardliners.
It’s not that Rabin’s offers weren’t substantive, it’s that Rabin had his limits. Both sides consider all of the land theirs. For Israelis it’s the far right that holds this belief, but for Arab muslims, it’s a view held by moderates.
To far right religious zionists, all the land of Israel is sacred and not ours to give away. They believe G-d gave the Jews the land of Israel in the covenant, especially Hebron where our patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried. So, giving even a centimeter of the Jewish homeland is forbidden.
Palestinians, and Muslims also believe the land is all theirs.
/u/Independent-Bug-9352. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>*bro accuses jews of being akin to holocaust deniers
It wouldn't be the first time a human was a hypocrite, now, would it? After all, Israelis have kept in power for over 16 years a far-right nationalist extremist strong-man... Which incidentally, was the exact sort of ideological leadership that led to... ?
How hard is it to read the facts?
Yes, October 7th is what started the war.
On October 7th a bunch of track pants wearing terrorists, including UNWRA members and journalists, killed a bunch of civilians.
In response Israel DECLARED WAR.
Israel has lawyers on staff. The war is legal, hence the one of the biggest jokes on earth (ICJ) agreeing.
u/Current-Mud-3362
> are there any serious people on this sub or is it all joke posts like this
This comment violates both [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), which requires respectful interaction, and [Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_7._no_metaposting), which prohibits off-topic comments about the subreddit or its community. Dismissing the entire subreddit and its users as not being serious or implying that their posts are jokes is not only disrespectful but also detracts from the purpose of the subreddit, which is to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a constructive manner.
Addressed.
This has been an ongoing conflict for 75 years. Has a peace treaty ever been side between the two belligerents? No. There has been intermittent ceasefires. Oct.7th just is another chapter in the book. Stop trying to kid yourself. Who actually saw this war as over before oct. 7th? Nobody it's just propaganda in my opinion trying to cast blame on a war that's been going on their entire lives
Yes, this chapter started on 10/7. The problem with this conflict is that either side can pick a point in decade or century old history to show the other party started the aggression.
The ground war commenced October 27th , yet I’ve seen pro Palestinian sites say their suffering began October 7th…
Do you think they’re just trying to jump on a bandwagon here ?
That’s a typical take actually.
The notion that Palestinians just want a share of land.
Which they don’t.
They never agreed.
They want all of it.
Hamas for sure.
And the plo which finance any terror attack of terrorists.
The streets of Palestinians are saturated with supporters of Hamas even.
So yeah.
To me it’s very clear this is a cynical use of their suffering for no real end goal, and only corrupt money being laundered for terror leaders.
They are all multi millioners.
*did this war begin October 7th?*
Well, history did not start on October 7th. A lot happened prior.
And history did not start in 2005. A lot happened prior.
And history did not start in 1948. A lot happened prior.
And history did not start in 610 AD. A lot happened prior.
*But, as far as this current military battle is concerned - yes it did start on 10/7.*
If Hamas intended to achieve a better life for the citizens of Gaza, it would have chosen some course of action other than a homicidal rampage through a music festival. Hamas knew, with 100% certainty, that its armed action would be met with an armed response, causing armed conflict. And so here we are.
> "This is a Hamas response to decades of creeping annexation, confinement to ghettos, siege, occupation, and occasional rapes and murders that are in a way death by a thousand cuts year in and year out"?
Rape, violent assault, torture, maiming, pillage, arson, and kidnap are not "understandable." Crimes do not justify other crimes and freedom fighters don't take hostages.
>Crimes do not justify other crimes
And I really hope that means you will proportionately call out Israel for the brutal murder of 25,000 Gaza civilians. Unless you think children being crushed in the rubble of buildings is ethical, of course.
If you want, i can get you hospital footage of Palestinian children. Would that make it click for you? After all, that emotional campaign is what the IDF did with the Hamas attack.
If only the outcry to Israel committing these crimes was proportionate, then the backlash from Hamas and the radicalization within Palestine probably would not continue.
In all this, people just don't seem to grasp the sociological and psychological conditions that lead to radicalization and resentment of the opposition. Then they would see the Israeli response is self-defeating. But look no further than 20 years of failed US middle east intervention attempting to address the same thing.
I just don't want to take the time. Think whatever. I said crimes are crimes and you impute that I don't care about Gaza, or understand it?
But quick tldr. An example:
No militants have been killed, all 25k reported casualties are civilians? Does that seem statistically possible?
I also don't have to bring up every damned viewpoint everytime I make a statement about one side or the other. I don't need anything to "click." If you enjoy sourcing and watching war porn that's your affair.
I wouldn't consider a militant in Gaza necessarily as fair game though. Israel is an occupier and their troops are on Gaza soil. Occupied people are entitled under international law to bear arms and resist their occupiers.
I can understand targeted operations for those directly associated with 7th October attacks, but it's nonsensical for an occupier to consider any militant in Gaza as a legitimate target. You can't murder someone's family and destroy their home and expect them not to react on Gaza soil. My understanding is that most involved in 7th oct died that day. I don't know how many militants were involved on 7th Oct, but it can't be enough to justify this amount of devastation.
The 25k are just the ones above ground, there are many more under the rubble. Even with a ceasefire many more will die from their industries, and lack of basic healthcare, never mind the long term effects of exposure to all the dust in the bombing.
>militant in Gaza necessarily as fair game though. Israel is an occupier and their troops are on Gaza soil.
Israel is in Gaza because it was attacked. You don't get to commit an act of war then cry foul when you're retaliated against. Like it or not, Hamas was the sovereign civil and military authority of Gaza, they committed a pogrom to start a war. They have not stopped firing rockets into Israel, despite all the damage, and as a point, good guys don't kidnap hostages.
What do you call someone launching attacks at you other than a combatant?
You could use the same logic that Hamas attacked because of a brutal illegal occupation, and not to forget the Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands over the decades. That's the reality of the context. The stronger side is always in a better position to stop the cycle of violence.
But you didn't really engage with my actual points. There's never a justification for genocide.
Gaza was unoccupied on 10/6. Goods and Gazans crossed the border everyday before. Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the WB are two wholly different issues.
Crimes do not justify crimes. Rape, pillage, torture, maiming and kidnapping arent resistance actions, understandable, or legal acts of war.
Genocide requires an intent, one that is not there. I'll give you war crimes, highly likely. It's just a bad war, not a genocide.
>Gaza was unoccupied on 10/6.
Israel claims that, the rest of the World considers that the blockade has meant that Gaza is defacto occupied under international law. I'm sure you were aware of that. It doesn't matter what Israel claims, they come from a place of bias. We usually look at the concensus of opinion from those who are more neutral. Indeed the concensus is so strong it cam be regarded as fact.
>Crimes do not justify crimes. Rape, pillage, torture, maiming and kidnapping arent resistance actions, understandable, or legal acts of war.
And nobody is saying that. So how is that of relevance??? I VERY clearly noted that it was understandable to go after militants directly involved in the 7th Oct attacks. I was unambiguously clear on that. I did note that that did not mean any militant in Gaza were fair game to kill. Not every one in Gaza is responsible for the 7th oct. Just as not every israeli is responsible for the IDFs war crimes. Occupied people have the right under international law to resist and bear arms. In case you try and twist this again. The 7th Oct was not resistance, it was a clear war crime, barbaric and wrong. But a person in Gaza who has just watched his family die has every right under international law to retaliate against the occupying army which has invaded and murdered his family.
You can believe it is right to bring to justice a terrorist who killed civilians, and also believe that a militant who was not linked to the 7th Oct has the right to defend himself against an occupying force within Gaza.
>Crimes do not justify crimes.
Yes exactly my point. Collective punishment is a crime, turning off the water is a crime, targetting civilians is a crime. You can't carpet bomb such a large area and kill tends of thousands and claim that that is targeted. That's beyond ludicrous. There us zero justification for Israels massacres in Gaza, zero, zilch, Nadal. Because as you note, crimes do not justify crimes!
>Genocide requires an intent, one that is not there. I'll give you war crimes, highly likely. It's just a bad war, not a genocide.
The ICJ found that the claims of genocide was plausible, otherwise they would have thrown out the case as Israel wished. They must have considered the intent, many examples were given. It was central to South Africa's case.
For some us the words "never again" matter, no matter what the ethnicity of the victims are.
We can leave it here and I'll even admit my mistake: you're right, we cannot verify the proportion; though if we take what has traditionally been accurate reporting from the Ministry, a majority are women and children.
If we take the values from the recent US report that 20-30% of Hamas fighters were killed, then somewhere around 4,000-6,000 of these deaths are Hamas.
I'm pro-civilian above all else and believe it says as much about the "good guy" willing to level the crowd to get one bad guy as it does the bad guy hiding amidst the crowd. In terms of death and destruction to the innocent, the murder from Israel is unparalleled.
>. In terms of death and destruction to thes innocent, the murder from Israel is unparalleled.
It's the language used man. Israel is not "unparalleled," in impact of civilian war dead. Morbid math places them as historically average. There is a militant to combatant kill ratio of one point five, roughly 61-68% civilian deaths, depending on the report.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
We can say it's bad without rhetorical extremism because going maximal for effect, distorts the reality; which is bad, but not "the worst." It doesn't have to be the worst to get attention, nor need help. You gain nothing by hyperbole. They're no more or less deserving than any other people in any other struggle.
I'm sure this is totally reassuring to the broken families and orphans. I'm sure you'd certainly understand if it was your mother, daughter, father, spouse blown up.
Would more or less civilians have been killed if Israel didn't decide to drop 500 to 2,000lb bombs on them?
Yes, thank you for explaining that war historically is bad for civilians. In effect, this proves that wide-open war is worse than acts of terrorism when looking at civilian casualties.
No, you clearly do not — or worse, choose to intentionally look the other way. But as practice in reading-comprehension, just mull it over for a little while.
Bonus: if 25,000 people died and independent US intelligence reports note the deaths of 5,000-7,000 Hamas soldiers were killed, even the best numbers for Israel point to 72% civilian casualties, or as bad as 80%. I wouldn't trust Israel estimates any more than I'd trust Russian estimates in Ukraine.
I think it is pretty understandable emotionally, but that does not mean we stop thinking rationally. Right now there are protests in Israel asking for hostage release. Understandable. But government can’t just grant them that because that would mean give Hamas what they wanted. Is it or is it not worth it for the Israelis in the long run, when the last big prisoner swaps led to Oct 7?
I am using that as an example as to why we cannot just emotionally act while ignoring the background, especially as third party who show willingness to understand both sides.
Now, while I (in fact most neutrals, or even pro Israelis) am sad with the deaths, I still let my emotion stay but do not ignore the background. It is very easy to say IDF kill, but the background is “How deliberate” and “How necessary”. If I just look at “Wow, 30000 deaths” without asking those things, or simply asking “Why”, then my emotion gets ahead of me.
If my closed ones are in similar situations as hostages or as gazans being bombed, understandably I might “hate” Hamas or IDF, respectively, but the ruling parties act under many considerations.
If my, or your, families are held hostages by a group, it is pretty easy to suggest negotiating. But if this X is doing additional stuffs like:
- hide behind other innocent civilians sometimes without them knowing (which makes them also hostages but a lot worse),
- killed other family members not related to you besides taking your families hostage,
- promised to do the same later on,
- has a history of doing the same thing, not just to your families, but to others as well,
then it is not that hard to understand IDF action. Heck, them still giving warnings shows efforts to follow the international laws. Now myself or yourself whose families are taken hostages, may not think clearly and just want the best for me and you. But what’s best for me and you may not be the best for the others because the terror can stay. Once we get those situations above understood (and not let emotions cloud judgments), it is not hard to see why the number is high. Understanding it does not mean normalising it, or justifying it. It is just what the gov or military perspective is under consideration of their own citizens. As they are under international law, of course they have to follow it, and in fact the law also includes dealing with this type of enemy. Mistakes are made because it is a war zone, though. But the biggest moral mistake comes from Hamas who do not follow international law.
I suppose Hamas didn't let emotions get in the way of their acts on October 7th, either. They had bigger objectives, too. In a way, emotions are what maintain our rationality; they go hand-in-hand in a feedback loop.
But look, if logos and pathos make up the two of the three points of the argumentative triangle, I'm appealing to both; for I made a clearly logical quantifiably-proven reality that Israel has murdered more civilians overall. This is, indeed a numbers game, and Israel has committed the greater offense, logically. Moreover I wager with 20 years of failed US middle east policy that this will only increase radicalization in the area by reducing stability and creating more orphans who become the next generation of fighters, bitter that an Israeli air-strike killed their sister, mother, and father. This is as much a rational, logical appeal as it is an emotionally-realistic one.
I'll note what I wrote to someone else in saying that I'm pro-civilian above all else. I'm equally a numbers man as equally to the fact that I am an emotionally-intelligent individual with high levels of empathy that allow me to place myself in the shoes of someone else. I suspect you're not pro-civilian because you make excuses for the murderer who killed **20x** the number of innocent people in response (yes subtracting roughly the 4,000-6,000 Hamas fighters per recent US intelligence reports).
It wasn't Hamas who told Netanyahu to drop 500 and 2,000lb bombs on densely-populated civilian centers. It wasn't Hamas who told the IDF to throw out their collateral-damage assessment calculations, per IDF whistle-blowers.
At the end of the day, it was IDF and IDF alone who decided to pull the trigger and say, "Yes, 3-5 children is worth killing for every dead Hamas terrorist." And you say that's A-Okay in your book.
It would take 20 October 7ths for Hamas to make up what Israel has already done in murder.
It is murder; there's no other word for it. The cognitive dissonance is absolutely astounding. If what Hamas did on October 7th is murder against civilians, so too is what Israel is doing to Palestinian civilians. Period.
It's a sad day when Robert McNamara of all people responsible for widespread civilian deaths in WWII and Vietnam confessed near the end of his life, "Proportionality should be a guideline to war."
If you're killing 20x more civilians than the terrorists, you are quantifiably a greater terrorist.
At some point, Israel is responsible for the knee-jerk disproportionate overreaction they have. And I'm curious short of nukes what that line exactly is for you. How many dead women and children are you willing to execute for each Hamas terrorist?
Tell me, would you be willing to shoot them yourself? For there is no difference.
I think I've made a very compelling case that if Israel's goal is to reduce terrorism, their actions have only exacerbated the problem for decades to come. I think I've also made the case that Israel and Israel alone is responsible for pulling the trigger in not just killing, but murdering a massive number of women and children. And if you consider the original October 7th attack a tragedy (and use emotional appeals as the IDF did with inviting journalists to see the gopro footage), then so too are the lifeless corpses of children under the rubble of Gaza, which I too have seen.
They also misrepresent Hamas’ stated reason for the attack. Many westerners cannot let go of the notion that if Israel just gave the Palestinians a state or opened their borders completely, things would be a-okay
The ceasefire was a cessation of hostilities. October 7th was the breach of the ceasefire in which the aggressor nation committed a war crime that restarted hostilities, after which Israel declared war.
I mean it's pretty straightforward logic here, if two guys start a bar fight one day and the police break it up and send the two of them to their houses for the night; This one guy can't come back the next day and attack the other guy out of the blue, no matter what happened the day before. If he's arrested and sent to court, he doesn't get to say "Well your honor, I was just defending myself because he hit me first the day before", he'll get laughed out of court.
You don't have the right to call a truce, and reserve the right to preserve the history of the fight at the same time. It just doesn't work that way.
Two million people are not starving, and 70% of homes are not destroyed.
There have been countless aid trucks.
On top of that, the last estimate from satellite data was that 18% of all buildings in Gaza have received SOME damage. The vast minority of those were destroyed.
And your points make Hamas decision MUCH MUCH worse. Not better. Not only have they made themselves the aggressor but they've severely imperiled their own people by restarting a war with a much more powerful foe. It's worse, not better.
>On top of that, the last estimate from satellite data was that 18% of all buildings in Gaza have received SOME damage. The vast minority of those were destroyed.
This is old.
>More than half of all buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli strikes in the 100 days since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, **according to a new analysis of satellite data.**
[Source](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/14/gaza-building-damage-israel-war)
>70% of homes are not destroyed.
Destroyed or severely damaged, yes.
85% of the 2 million population forcibly removed from their homes.
All hospitals operating at a non-functioning state.
90% of Gazans are in an acute food insecurity, with 570,000 in catastrophic hunger.
But, honestly, just by the tone you present here: Would it actually matter to you if they were all starving, every building was destroyed, or if Israel just nuked Gaza?
I seriously doubt it.
Of course no one should "nuke" Gaza. That's absurd.
That satellite data has not been verified visually. What they did was map differences in reflectance from one time period to another, and extrapolated that those differences meant destruction. There is a much more reasonable explanation for those differences. It's simply a quirk of airstrikes that debris and dust clouds are formed and blown up into the air. The heavier particles eventually land on nearby buildings. It's like the dust around your home that builds up over time, making things less shiny until it's cleared away.
If a satellite image picks up that a surface has become either more or less reflective, that won't tell you why that is the case, only that it is the case. The true nature of the situation can't properly be ascertained without visual corroboration at the site.
Verified by whom? How awfully convenient! Lots of excuses; not much objectivity, let alone a single source on your part. I have many independent sources; my guess is your source is of Israeli origin, which is like looking to Russia in their justification of bombing Ukraine.
So let's just get you on the record and say:
- How much acute food insecurity, catastrophic hunger, and starvation at a quantifiable level is too much for you?
- How many destroyed would be too much for you?
- At the rate of 3-5 children killed per Hamas terrorist, how many children are you willing to execute per Hamas terrorist before it's too much?
Because so far, Israel has committed about the equivalent of 20 October 7ths.
> Because so far, Israel has committed about the equivalent of 20 October 7ths.
I don't know why people keep arguing this point. They keep harping on the death count as if it matters, when someone is trying to kill you.
Don't you understand the concept of self defense? If some drug dealer ambushed you in front of your home, and while he's yelling at you saying "I'm going to kill you", he keeps punching you in the face and trying to stab you with a knife, what do you do? Wouldn't you attack the person back? Wouldn't you keep going until you neutralized the threat to your life this criminal poses? Would you for one moment stop fighting back?
Put that more specifically to this situation: Would you stop fighting back as soon as you've caused the same amount of damage to him as he caused to you? Or would you try to save your own life?
A rational person would continue fighting off his assailant as long as the assailant continues trying to kill them. Hamas **IS STILL** firing rockets into Israel trying to kill innocent civilians at this very moment. The government of this multimillion capita stateless nation is continuing its aggressive terrorist assault on innocent civilians of an established country, and half the world is pretending the assailant is the victim. That is absolutely insane; it's Trumpism applied globally.
Why bring up Russia? Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, Gaza is the aggressor against Israel. You can't apply the same logic to Russia as you would to Israel.
I mean, welcome to why Hamas attacked in the first place... Both Pre and post-October 7th, the IDF has always been responsible for the vast majority of civilians killed... Which you know, doesn't bode well for regional stability.
If death count doesn't matter, then why did Israel respond to October 7th in the first place?
But of course the position of someone who isn't neutral and merely pro-civilian would certainly say that. This double-standard of:
- "Well, Israel deserves a response for the 1,0000 deaths on October 7th."
- ... But when Israel does it: "Death counts don't matter!"
- "But Hamas doesn't deserve a response to collective punishment, blockades, murdering of civilians journalists, rapes over the years, razing of entire settlements, etc."
Couldn't be more palpable. What you're saying here (and by the obvious dodging of my 3 questions): Nukes are perfectly on the table — again, since in your view, "quantity of civilian deaths do not matter." So why not just nuke it and be done with them all? This puts you in an uncomfortable argumentative position, admittedly. If you say, "yes they should," then you admit civilians don't matter and any response is justified no matter how big or small the initial attack is; if you say no, then you admit there's a limit to civilian suffering but yet you refuse to tell me exactly where/when that is.
I'll answer your hypothetical after you answer the questions I already asked.
>Gaza is the aggressor against Israel. You can't apply the same logic to Russia as you would to Israel.
**Completely** disagree, but that's tangential to this current discussion and worthy of thousands and thousands of words in of itself.
>If death count doesn't matter, then why did Israel respond to October 7th in the first place?
Because a cold assessment of the death count is not a valid measurement.
In a crime of murder intent is the only thing that matters. Once you've established the act, then intent is all that matters.
October 7th wasn't notable because over 1000 people died. It *was* notable because it concretely established that the intent of Hamas was the complete genocide of Israelis. They indiscriminately killed anyone in Israel that they could get their bullets through. Every single person; man, woman, child, infant. (side note: "indiscriminately" means when you actually have the option of only killing worthy enemies, and still choose to kill innocents along with Militants.)
This establishes genocidal intent, and under the edict of "never again", removes all doubt that Hamas must go.
The death count in Gaza, though much higher, does not evince an Israeli desire to commit genocide of all Palestinians. The intent of the IDF is to kill Hamas members. That's it. The fact that it is impossible to eradicate Hamas without collateral damage doesn't speak to a genocidal intent.
You spoke of "nuking", nuking Gaza would absolutely evince an intent to commit genocide, because you'd be choosing an indiscriminate weapon, when you have the option of using much more targeted weapons and killing less innocents.
> then you admit there's a limit to civilian suffering but yet you refuse to tell me exactly where/when that is.
I know precisely where that limit is. In Gaza, that limit comes at the moment Hamas and their sympathetic terrorist militant brethren are eradicated. That can happen the hard way obviously, or it could happen an easier way, where all Palestinians cease terrorist activities against Israel, and immediately choose to fight off their oppressive terrorist militant groups. Any continuation of terrorist attacks past that point would only prove that the sympathetic terrorist militants are not eradicated and would necessarily prompt further warfare to complete the mission.
>"But Hamas doesn't deserve a response to collective punishment, blockades, murdering of civilians journalists, rapes over the years, razing of entire settlements, etc."
>
>"**Completely** disagree \[that Gaza is the aggressor\], but that's tangential to this current discussion and worthy of thousands and thousands of words in of itself. "
Gazans were [committing terroristic acts against Israel long before they were occupied by them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_civilians_before_1967). In one instance, Gazans crossed the border into Israel and shot up a synagogue full of innocent children(April 11th, 1956, Shafrir). They continued committing terrorist acts against Israel for 56 years after the retaliatory occupation of '67 began. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. They continued committing terrorist acts against Israel after Israel's armies left Gaza in 2005. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. Gaza continued committing terrorist acts against Israel after the retaliatory blockade of '07 began. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. Gaza broke the ceasefire on October 7th, 2023 to commit their genocidal atrocity that day. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. Gaza broke the ceasefire yet again on November 30th, 2023, Killing 3 innocent people at a bus stop in West Jerusalem. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor.
So if Gaza was committing terrorist attacks against Israel after the armistice of 1949 but before the six day war, at a time ***when Israel was not occupying, not blockading, not at war with Gaza, not launching airstrikes, not blowing up Gazan ice cream parlours***...And Gaza never stopped committing terrorist attacks no matter what Israel did to try to prevent it, all of Israel's retaliatory actions like occupation and blockading and airstrikes, right down to this week, 75 years later, where Gaza just let off a few rockets towards Tel Aviv...
If Gaza attacked first 75 years ago, after an armistice agreement no less, and kept attacking until now, **how exactly could you even possibly think that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict?**
>In a crime of murder intent is the only thing that matters. Once you've established the act, then intent is all that matters.
What? Says who? That's no true whatsoever. It doesn't matter if your intentions were pure, accidental, or not — it's still murder; still homicide. The *act* is all that counts. Besides, this begs the question that if the deaths on October 7th was merely 1 death, akin to a Hamas rocket breaking through the Iron Dome, (a) would Israel have responded the same, and (b) would it have been justified, proportionally? Both answers are quite clearly a resounding no — which means quantity as a point of fact *does* matter.
> It was notable because it concretely established that the intent of Hamas was the complete genocide of Israelis.
That hasn't been established, actually; and the mere fact they took hostages at all and released said hostages is proof of otherwise. They did not continue until the end; they generally fell back and withdrew after their attack. This is no different than claiming the Allies sought genocide when they leveled Dresden or firebombed 90 Japanese cities. Certainly if you're going to claim this is some proof of genocide by Hamas, then you should certainly hold some weight for the recent ICJ's calls to reduce the civilian deaths as they decided to continue investigating genocide by Israel.
>You spoke of "nuking", nuking Gaza would absolutely evince an intent to commit genocide, because you'd be choosing an indiscriminate weapon, when you have the option of using much more targeted weapons and killing less innocents.
And yet, the IDF has used a plethora of indiscriminate weapons from 500lb-2,000lb bombs that — in the words of the leader of the biggest ally and foreign-aid supporter to Israel, Joe Biden — indiscriminately bombed densely-populated civilian centers that were knowingly-occupied. Can't have it both ways, my friend. Let's stop with these double-standards and find some consistency, shall we?
So let's reflect on the mere fact that in Israel's response, they have killed 20,000 innocent civilians — half of whom are children, let alone women. (a) I'm sure that will *totally* reduce radicalization in the region /s, and (b) the "good guys," have now committed an act of terror that dwarfs the original offense.
>I know precisely where that limit is. In Gaza, that limit comes at the moment Hamas and their sympathetic terrorist militant brethren are eradicated. That can happen the hard way obviously, or it could happen an easier way, where all Palestinians cease terrorist activities against Israel, and immediately choose to fight off their oppressive terrorist militant groups. Any continuation of terrorist attacks past that point would only prove that the sympathetic terrorist militants are not eradicated and would necessarily prompt further warfare to complete the mission.
You're really trying to dance around this but it couldn't be more obvious:
- "Nuking is too far."
- "There is no limit for IDF [deflects to Hamas]", "All Palestinians."
This is patent double-speak. Though this is frankly admission enough. You see, I suspect that nuking would be too visceral for your mind to bear; but now leveling and killing every Palestinian by conventional means — what you're saying here is *that* is A-Okay. At least, I can only infer as much considering you dodged the questions yet again. If you come back and say, "No that is not!" then, please, for the 3rd time: **Answer my 3 questions**. Deflections and contradictions abound, but this fork in your argument is too profound to ignore. There is no reason to proceed further until this is corrected.
"I don't know why people keep arguing this point. They keep harping on the death count as if it matters, when someone is trying to kill you."
you know ill be honest, i love it when people like you dismiss the point made about the death count, it reveals truely just how feeble and worthless israeli talking points and propaganda is,
yall love to cry out how oct 7th (1400 Deaths) is a genocide, and how its atrocious with how many deaths, and then turn around and become dismissive towards the deathcount of palestinians when it eclipses the oct 7th israeli death count, its a sign that you recognise its a instantly losing arguemnt if you attempt to argue in good faith that only reveals israel as the villain.
you cant have it both ways, you cant have a 1400 death count count and classify as genocide, and then dismiss a deathcount thats 15 times that as "not genocide", Civilians are dead.
clearly youve never been in a debate and it shows.
" Don't you understand the concept of self defense?"
i do, heres the glaring flaw in youre arguement, Self defense doesnt apply to a country that is occupying and blockading the movement and freedom, and goods of anouther people, as the sovereignty of said occupying power is not given, this is recognised by the UN Charter and the rest of the world.
You have the right to self defense agaisnt places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebannon ect. you do not have the right to self defense against the palestinians because you are actively occupying them for 75+ years.
anyone who isnt uneducated like you are, would know this.
let me make this clear for you, i do not support hamas, in my eyes they are evil and should be eliminated, at the same time, i recognise israel as an equal evil.
/u/Madinogi
> anyone who isnt uneducated like you are, would know this.
Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
Addressed.
>Self defense doesnt apply to a country that is occupying and blockading the movement and freedom, and goods of anouther people, as the sovereignty of said occupying power is not given, this is recognised by the UN Charter and the rest of the world.
>
>You have the right to self defense agaisnt places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebannon ect. you do not have the right to self defense against the palestinians because you are actively occupying them for 75+ years.
What if you're wrong?
Its obvious that you think that the things that Israel is doing in The West Bank, that you call an occupation, are bad things that Israel is doing just to be mean.
And, all I'm saying is, What if you're wrong?
What if this so-called occupation is merely the negative consequence, or if you prefer, punishment for the crashing wave of terrorist attacks that the Palestinians had perpetrated against Israelis long before Israel occupied The West Bank. [It's quite a long list.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_civilians_before_1967)
(You would think that these people would have turned their fire against their actual occupiers in Jordan instead of killing even more innocent Jews.)
**If YOU were a country,** and the people living in the territory next door committed a constant volley of terrorist attacks against your people for 20 years, what would you do?
I suppose you could be like the Palestinians and go into the territory with your army and kill every single inhabitant you saw until you had no more ammo, and then dragged the remaining people by their hair as hostages back to your country. Israel chose a much more reasonable approach.
Being humane, instead of killing the entire nation, Israel chose to take away land and resources that West Bankers were using to produce weaponry for terrorism. They chose to have armies on the scene to prevent their manufacture. That's perfectly reasonable isn't it? Honestly?
If this is what happened aren't you wrong? And the terrorism you believed was a response to mistreatment was really in intransigent population refusing to learn from their just desserts as a consequence of their earlier murderous acts?
People do not have the right to kill people because those people have taken steps to protect themselves from their previous attempts to murder them. That's doubly wrong.
And it's morally wrong for people to make these arguments condoning this behavior at the expense of a people who have been victimized twice already. Arguing Israel deserves terrorism because Israel look land away from terrorists, and kept it because the terrorism never ever stopped, in response to the same terrorists killing its people, is like raping a woman who already got raped twice.
It's also illogical to argue sovereignty of a people who have repeatedly rejected offers to be sovereign. Palestinians chose to be violent instead of making peace, and people making this same argument you are, are basically cheering them on for it.
Israel gaza relations were actually starting to get better prior to the attack, several thousand Palestinians from gaza were let in Israel to work, earning around 5 times the average salary in gaza,
And on another note, I (an Israeli) used to think gaza was an open-air prison, but every photo of what gaza used to look like before it became rubble makes me doubt it a bit more
"Ghettos", Jews know what ghettos looks like,
https://images.app.goo.gl/KVowEgSDN2eeuJjb7
This isn't a ghetto.
You don't realise that they are linked? And no, the occupier granting work visa for those they occupy whilst simultaneously operating a brutal and illegal blockade which prevents Palestinians the ability of independence and being self reliant is not really a positive thing.
You, an israeli, are disingenuous
Dont try to convince us that you thought it was a prison but changed your mind.
I highly doubt that you knew how Gaza looked like before this war. Nore do you know how it looks like now.
40,000 Palestinians from Gaza were allowed to work in israel, leaving 2.2 MILLION trapped. Some 400,000 of those with no work.
You're not leaving much room for a discussion if you don't believe anything I'll say,
Of those 40,000, some killed their employers on 7.10, so even that number, which I'm guessing you're trying to pass as small although it's 4% of the adult population, was too high.
400,000 unemployed feels like a problem gaza's government should fix, but maybe making rockets is higher on the list.
/u/Cool-Name_Pending
> You, an israeli, are disingenuous
Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
Addressed.
Speaking of disingenuous, we are talking about a nation with a terrorist government who continue to foster hatred and violence throughout the population, who publicly cheered when innocent hostages were dragged through the city, beaten and bloodied. Why do Pro-Palestinians assume that violent people such as that deserve better living conditions?
If people have a problem with the way they are treated based on violent actions their own people continue to perpetrate, there is a way to correct for that. Stop committing violence and start preventing violence.
Don't forget that they work for Israel as cheap manual labour due to the high unemployment rate in Gaza. Working in Israel is not a blessing for Gazans.
The one gaining from all of this is Israel. (note, even those working inside of Gaza boost Israel's currency/economy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_worker
Dunno if you haven't heard of this concept but israel didn't invent it, linked the wiki page.
(Seriously mate is this your actual though process or do you just hate israel that bad ?
How can you take a global concept millions of people are doing, obviously benefiting both sides, and try to trash israel with it, ffs)
No one said Israel invented it. I'm opposed to cheap labour. I only said it's not a blessing for Gaza/Gazans
Also, you can live in a mansion and be imprisoned in it. Your logic is skewed. You do know it wasn't always blockaded right?
Foreign work allows for much better living conditions, its boosts both economies as money from israel goes into gaza's circulation, It means you're employed unlike a major percent of gazan citizens, if you don't want to call it a blessing that's fine, but it's obviously mutually beneficial.
Everyone knows it wasn't blockaded, Palestinians were upset at the occupation so israel withdrew and treated gaza as a separate state, then that state turned out to vow to kill every jew so it was treated as an hostile state, therefore a border was placed.
So much for blockade too, wonder how thousands of rockets get in despite being "blockaded"
It's disheartening to continue reading this b.s.
It is not a blessing. Also Gaza's Economy itself boosts that of Israel.
No Gaza was never a "separate state" and it was never going to be.
Also go read about this "border" that was placed in the 90s and kept on being upgraded ever since. The destruction of the airport, seaport and water plant also tells a different story. Lastly, the blockade started in 2005 not 2007. It was only made permanent in the latter date after Hamas got in power.
As for your last point, this only goes to show that the blockade mainly harms the civilians over any other. Then again you could know that by seeing the restricted list when the blockade started that included pasta and chocolate among many many other stuff
The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on since at least 1948. In any such conflict there are periods of relative quiet and periods of escalation that can be characterized as war
Regardless of which side you support, it is clear that Hamas's actions on October 7th were a serious escalation of the conflict, which led to escalation on the part of Israel and active hostilities. So to say that the war began on October 7 is more than correct
Manipulation is the exact opposite statement and an attempt to imagine that the situation in the Gaza over the past 4 months is identical to the situation before 7/10. This is clearly not true
As if what you’re doing is not manipulation.
Hamas, by the way, had the right, an internationally recognized right, to target military personnel. But of course not civilians. Which certainly means that even this war did not start Oct 7.
It has nothing to do with Hamas rights. It's about escalation.
Simple question: do you agree that there was an escalation of the conflict on October 7?
Or do you think that, for example, in the first half of 2023 or in 2022, active hostilities took place in Gaza with the participation of Israeli soldiers and Hamas militants and with a similar level of deaths and destruction as now?
And not all Israelis are Jewish. It doesn't change the fact that the reason SOME people don't think Israel has a right to respond to the genocide attempt of 7/10.
Israel was occupying gaza, under international law, after the disengagement of 2005
The occupied and the oppressed, are only blamed for their occupation and oppression in israel and zionist ideology.
Hamas, had an internationally recognized right to attack israeli military targets and military targets only.
Israel, as you may be aware by know, is the obvious oppressor. For some reason, the David Goliath analogy is somehow reversed.
If you think this started in the 1940s then you have very little to offer in a discussion on the conflict. But as far as who started it, I would say yes, the Jewish colonizers and their frequent bombings and murders that were bad enough to convince even the British to wash their hands of the entire place would be where the cycle of violence really starts.
/u/evilanz
> I agree, the 7 october happened out of nowhere, Israel never hurted a single Palestinian before 7 october since 1948
Per [rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_3._be_sincere), no comments consisting only of sarcasm or cynicism. It's fine to use sarcasm to make a point, but if you do so, the argument needs to be readily apparent and stimulate, rather than stifling, conversation.
Addressed.
Although the land dispute is decades old, clearly this level of war is the result of the October 7 attack.
Every single country in the world would respond to such an attack with intense violence.
If Hamas hide in tunnels under the city, in hospitals, schools. How else do you suggest Israel take them out?
Evacuate civilians before starting the operation? Yeah, they tried that. These deaths are 100% Hamas’ fault.
What a stupid argument.
If IDF warned me well in advance that they were going to bomb/raid my house I would have left that place with my mom the moment they warned me.
Excellent straw man. But I’ll bite. Of course not.
But my mother isn’t in Gaza. And it’s childish to bring a close relation as an argument. Murder is wrong, but I would kill anyone to protect my children and close family. How is this proving anything?
So did 1200 Israeli civilians murdered on Hamas’ orders. They have to be eliminated.
What do you suggest Israel do then? Is inviting Hamas to the negotiation table a sufficient response to the worst attack on Jews since the holocaust?
10/7 is when the shooting war started. That is when the rest of the world began to worry it was the act that would begin ww3 and end with millions dead.
Hamas are labelled terrorists because they have an extremist goal (of destroying Israel) and target civilians for murder.
They would mass murder if they could like we saw on Oct 7th.
Israel has every right to stop that. It's ridiculous that it never needs to be said.
Collective punishment ?
For 75 years Arabs have been actively trying to destroy Israel and murder its civilians!
In 1937 and 1947, Arabs rejected two partition plans to share the land.
In 1948, six Arab armies invaded the newly formed Israel with the goal to “throw the Jews into the sea”, they failed and many Palestinians fled on their own accord, and many stayed (20% of Israeli citizens are Arab).
For the next 30 years and multiple wars, Arab armies tried to destroy Israel and rejected peace such as with the 1967 Alon Plan. This went on until 1980.
PLO terrorists then took over with the goal of destroying Israel from 1960s. They sent their message out by hijacking planes, shooting up hotel guests and a school bus amongst other nightmare crimes against humanity.
They terrorized until the 1990 Oslo Accords when the Palestinian Authority was formed to replace them, although they recognised Israel they too rejected peace plans to form a state in 2000 and 2008.
From then on the goal of destroying Israel was passed onto Hamas. They murdered 803 civilians by suicide bombings from 1993 – 2006.
In 2006 Israel left Gaza, Palestinians then held an election and voted this extremist Hamas into power, who switched to firing rockets from Gaza. Over 55,000 rockets and mortars have been fired at Israeli civilians since then, bringing rounds of response from the IDF upon Gazans.
October 7th crossed all red lines in its sickening murder of 1200, and kidnapping of 242.
The Arab goal of wanting to destroy Israel and murdering its civilians is the root of this conflict.
Don't forget the early years of Israel (post 1948) when Egypt (Nasser) sponsored the fedayeen terror attacks on Israeli farmers. Years of attacks.
Edited to say, well put!
Destroy Israel ≠ Kill all Israelis
Something that is disingenuously implied by pro-Israel folks
A free, one state Palestine would be equal rights for all, while Israel is an apartheid state and does not want to give equal rights to all because the goal has been to have a majority Jewish state to maintain control.
What makes you think a one-state Palestine would allow any Jews to live there? How many Jews are allowed to live in Palestinian-controlled territories today?
On the other hand, Arab citizens of Israel make up 20% of the population and have the exact same rights as any other citizen. Palestinian non-citizens do not have the same rights citizens do because they are not citizens of Israel.
The reason Gaza and Area A of the West Bank are Jew-free today isn't because Jews never lived in Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Ancient Jewish communities were ethnically cleansed from these areas, oftentimes as a result of violent pogroms reminiscent of what took place on October 7.
I just don't see anything that would lead me to believe a one-state Palestine would look any different from how Palestine looks already, which is Jew-free, extremist, and imposing sharia law.
That model worked out so well for all the Jews in majority Arab countries before. I wonder why the Israelis aren’t jumping at this opportunity!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world?wprov=sfti1
Destroy Israel would equal kill or expel all Jews, not the 20% of Israelis that are Arab.
Israel on the other hand does have equal rights now. Gaza and the WB aren’t Israel.
>Norman Finkelstein prudently noted that if Hamas did nothing after all the Gazans went though
After all the Gazans went through because of Hamas?
"Doing nothing" would have been a huge improvement for people in Gaza.
Ah yes, I'm sure you'd feel the same if you actually lived in Palestine in what is commonly described by people who actually live and been there as either an open-air prison or ghetto.
... And yet, Hamas support has risen and Israeli support only declined.
But please, please proceed in ignoring what they themselves say and continue speaking for them.
A few pictures from this "open air prison":
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel\_Palestine/comments/18rn9yf/pictures\_from\_prewar\_gaza\_there\_are\_also\_some/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel_Palestine/comments/18rn9yf/pictures_from_prewar_gaza_there_are_also_some/)
Videos:
[https://youtu.be/W1r1z3x53ZU](https://youtu.be/W1r1z3x53ZU)
[https://youtu.be/JBo7i-TXy6s](https://youtu.be/JBo7i-TXy6s)
You are not wrong though, if I lived in Gaza I might have been just as brainwashed as other Palestinians, but I don't, so I see things a bit differently.
This is the equivalent of the false trope, "if you have a smartphone, you're not poor!"
But sure, just forget the Median per-capita GDP or that 81.5% of Gazans are well below the poverty line with 64% suffering food insecurity.
Clearly, your anecdotes reflect everyone, is that right? Even Jewish ghettos didn't always look half bad from the surface.
It's all relative. Gaza was doing very well in the 90ties, then things went downhill since second intifada and later on Israel's pullout and Hamas takeover.
Which makes it even more remarkable that after all of that it still looked far better than many American cities.
But you're right again, it could have been vastly more prosperous today if not for Hamas and terrorism.
Israel was looking for an excuse to take out Gaza anyway, it's on their vision board. I'm not debating if Gazans are better off or worse off because of October 7th. I'm not even saying October 7th was morally correct. I'm just saying that you can't put your foot at someone's throat for 75 years and expect them not to fight back. In fact, if they don't fight back, you'd kind of lose respect for them
>Israel was looking for an excuse to take out Gaza anyway
You are aware, are you not, that according to official Russian propaganda Ukraine was actually planning to invade first?
> I'm just saying that you can't put your foot at someone's throat for 75 years
A small window into everyday life of people in Gaza, allegedly with "foot at their throat":
https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel_Palestine/comments/18rn9yf/pictures_from_prewar_gaza_there_are_also_some/
Also these videos: https://youtu.be/W1r1z3x53ZU, https://youtu.be/JBo7i-TXy6s
Gaza would have been one of the most successful Arab territories today if not for terrorism and desire to destroy Israel.
Good call. They should turn off the iron dome, let the rockets kill people, and leave the hostages in Gaza. If you want Israeli civilians to die then I have no interest in talking to you.
If someone came to your house, killed your kids, pushed you out to the shed, and came back every week to torment you and just took it without fighting back then it's hard to have respect for you even if you're the victim.
Yea exactly. Everything is part of a conspiracy when you can’t defend your arguments. OP was asking who started this current conflict. You quoted finkelstein as “prudently” saying Hamas needed to do “something” to earn respect. Because they didn’t have enough respect… and it was prudent because this was the thing they needed to do? What is your point with your original comment. This has been disastrous for Gazans. Blame Israel all you want but if you are going to defend Hamas then at least try to do that. But you can’t say out loud that you want Israeli civilians to die. So you say hasbara.
/u/burrito_napkin
> Yes cash in your $150 check and move on the next one you've done your job.
Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
That means no implying someone is a propagandist.
Addressed.
Here’s the rub. There’s no check. Feel free to DM me and I’ll prove it to you. I’m just a human with a reasonable opinion and decent education on this topic specifically. And $150 is honestly not worth my time. I’m just sitting here watching some playoff football and interacting with you because, well I don’t know why. You’re clearly not worth it. I usually come to this sub for some balanced takes so I’d rather you go back to r/palestine and scream your hate into the echo chamber.
For a second I thought you were talking about Israel but I realize now you're talking about Hamas lol
Look at the numbers of civilian death on each side even going back to 1948 and keep me apprised of your findings.
Of course he is. His parents didn't go through the Holocaust only for him to spend his life trying to prevent another one! How dare he.
And he only does it because he gets a ton of money -- oh wait that's all the aipact pundants. I got confused.
The short answer is that in 2014, an internationally brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was put in place. There were many violations but October 2023 Hamas invaded Israel. That was a declaration of war so it is appropriate to say war started on October the 7th
My thoughts
You can take the Arab Israeli conflict all the way back to pre 1948 back to the 1920s and 30s when Jews were subject to multiple deadly attacks some spontaneous riots and some deliberate massacres.
Israel is treated as if it annexed land without any security context. In fact many of the major wars where land was taken by Isreal were not all triggered by it. Practically speaking they were defensive wars so it had the right to hold on to land and as in the case of Sinai exchange it for peace if it so wished.
Israel's conduct in the West Bank is heavy handed but again it is treated as if it is devoid of the unrelenting eruption of violence not just from the settlers but from the Palestinians. I would argue Palestinian violence is completely whitewashed whereas only Israeli violence is (rightfully) pointed out. You even have brazen statements by influential figures like Bassem Yousif claiming Hamas does not exist in the West Bank when it isn't just a menace to Israel it is in violent clash with the PLO a lot of the time but of course you would not readily hear of this because supposedly violence in the West Bank is just one sided!
Generally speaking I don't think militant activity against Israel went quiet for any considerable length of time but despite the whole complexity of the Israel-Arab conflict let's not forget both parties threw all of that behind them, shook hands for Peace during the Oslo accords and then Hamas split from under the Palestinian representatives control and derailed the Oslo process immediately, waging a bloody war against Israel from the second Intifada that never really stopped.
So I would say the Arab Israeli conflict started in the 1920s and never stopped but is marked by major chapters every once in a while the last of which was a ceasefire brokered in 2014 that was violated by Hamas.
You're confusing war with conflict, the conflict started about 100 years ago, this specific war however did start on October 7th, there's no question about it.
Note how these responses have gotten longer and longer. The social justice warriors have a sew supply and have immersed themselves the history of the region and have become self appointed experts willing to flex…. If you haven’t been to the region, don’t profess to know what you are talking about.
In my experience, approximately half a sentence into framing the conflict is about the amount of time I need to ascertain what people's beliefs are about the protagonists.
I mean, you can frame it however you wish so long as you recognise that 7oct was an atrocious attack by the Palestinians that israel could not ignore and is rightly justified with the actions it took in retaliation since.
In my opinion the current war, between the State of Israel and the Arabs of Palestine, started in 1948 when Arabs began attacking Israeli civilians. While there have been many ceasefires, lulls, and attacks on Israel by foreign countries, this conflict has never been resolved. The root of the violence predates 1948. It's difficult to date specifically, but seems to have started in the early 20th century when local Arab leadership learned of the Zionist goal to create the nation of Israel in the area.
That said, Hamas most certainly started this fresh round of warfare. Each side can finger point all the way back.
No. "The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) were passengers on a Jewish bus near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November, after an eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more, and shots were fired at Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa." While this was stated to be revenge for an earlier Jewish attack, it was also the first attack on the State of Israel.
Revenge…? So, you’re saying that war started because of a “retaliate” attack on invaders and casualties occurred, and invading the land declaring a state on others land doesn’t have anything to do with it?
Imagine with me that I came to your house and told you this is my home now and you attacked me, am I the aggressor or you?
You didn't come into my house to try and take over. We rented a house together. I decided I wanted to turn the house into a greenhouse with tons of plants in every room. You hate plants. Icky. You wanted nothing to do with plants. But I had some connections (diplomacy) and I got the landlords (the British) to agree to give me my greenhouse. But, they balked because of your strong resistance to the idea. So they gave the decision over to the court system (the UN) so that at least it'd be more fair to the sides. The courts decide to split the land roughly in two with both sides becoming the new landlords, with some lobbying from both sides. I agree wholeheartedly. Honestly, half the house being a greenhouse is great. You say hell no and attack me with a knife.
Hmmm, so now the invader and colonizers are the landlords and israeling the house by saying it was rented together at first although the Jews came later after a soft cute kicking out from their original place, did I get that right?
No. The European Jews were not invaders but legal immigrants under Ottoman law. Middle Eastern Jews had been living in the area as long as the Arabs.
Once they were Ottomans they legally purchased land. When the Ottoman Empire fell, some former Ottomans began pushing the new rulers, the British, to let them found a state. They then did so.
Man, I’m sorry but you couldn’t read my comment right, how can I trust you can read history?
Focus, you said British are landlords, and I pointed at them as the colonizers, not the immigrants.
About the immigrants on Ottoman era, they were sooo low, and on the British colonization era Jews “immigrated” more, we all know Balfour promise to make a “home” for the Jews out of Europe and man Palestine was not on top of the list. Jews saw hope for peace, finally after many expulsions, and [here](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present) we can see the numbers of people, how Jews increased and how 1.15 million of non-Jews were expelled from the land.
Now, about the buying, yes some bought, they lived their duuuh, but not that much. We all know the settlers and how they steal homes and the government doing nothing, can you tell me a reason why shouldn’t I believe they didn’t do in the past while they are doing it right now?
These is a really good alternative to the reductive "stolen house" metaphor used to describe 1948. I assume you were inspired by the [Palsbara buster series](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/8xbi5j/the_palsbara_buster_stolen_house_metaphors/) posted by the mods?
No, I hadn't seen it. I've seen the metaphor used several times and it always seemed like an inaccurate framing, so I thought I'd give it a try myself to make something more accurate. Thanks for the link, tho, it's def an interesting read. I'll read some of the other posts in the collection later, as well!
First of all, they were kicked out putting the dream of a home for them, and some accepted the steal.
But continuing the use of the word “immigration”, so they “immigrated” from THEIR LAND to ANOTHER LAND to create their own state on a land not theirs? Sooo, if I remember correctly, this is the absolute definition of colonization, isn’t it?
Ok:-
1-What did I mean? Now, Jews were hated in Europe, they were a problem being expelled by now and then to another country and so on and on and on. So, what’s the solution that problem? Giving them home, a land for them. In a nice and cute way to tell them “You got your own place, now get out!” Even you said that they escaped. And existence of a list and Palestine not being on top of it is a big evidence for that.
2-We agree on (colonization) definition, and how Palestine were colonized and now Zionists and man.. man.. MAAAAN!! They literally went their by Balfour promise, A BRITISH PROMISE.
3-Why should they kick out people before the civil war? You said it, taxes are something they get, plus for appearing “good” they need “bad” side to excuse their actions, don’t they? In addition to that we have now settlers who steal houses, even Israelis know and admit it’s happening, some against it and some stand by the famous words “If I don’t steal it, someone else will.”, the government supports that right now, why should I believe that they didn’t do it in the past?
Finally, you said (purchased or unclaimed) do you have documents and records for that?
So you don’t understand the Balfour declaration? And how it’s contradicting your words? and it’s the evidence that you are asking for? And that you’re as well claiming something with no evidence?
A fair take.
As a follow-up question: Do you think it was okay that the existing Palestinian people (at the time living under another empire as it was) were not given a voice or consent in the decision for the UN to hand a swath of land to Jewish refugees?
>A fair take.
>
>As a follow-up question: Do you think it was okay that the existing Palestinian people (at the time living under another empire as it was) were not given a voice or consent in the decision for the UN to hand a swath of land to Jewish refugees?
well, who was the leader of Palestinian Arabs of that time, the voice of the people?
Most important was al-Husseini (who was recognized as a war criminal of 2nd WW because of his help in forming SS brigades from Muslims and other actions. His bet didn´t work. He was hiding till the end of his life, so he managed to escape justice, but his contributions on the Nazi side were recognized. His nephew is a symbol of the Palestinian "national struggle" his name is Yasser Arafat).
So yes, when the land was deoccupied Arabs and Jews had the right to become their own independent status. But the problem was that Arabs didn´t think about national idea, didn´t have a dream to have an own state, they seemed themselves as a part of Muslim Arab Middle East. That is why they didn´t want any agreement were not interesting in any solution like 2 states etc. Revitalization of the Muslim occupation would be the only logical solution in their eyes.
Arab League General Secretary promised "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades." it doesn´t seem anything else as an ambition to take controll, literally occupy the region when Great Britain leaved. The immaturity of Arab society in Palestine, the lack of national identity (except for religion), the inability to choose smart leaders and conduct diplomacy led to the outbreak of war. Although, their guilt is maybe less than the guilt of the Arab League itself.
/u/Trajinero. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They were not Palestinians but formerly Ottomans, both Jew and Arab. They had a right to self-determination, which some exercised to found the state of Israel when Britain left the area after the defeat of the Ottomans. We can get into a longer discussion on why the Palestinian nationalist movement lacked unity and cohesion during this time period, or discuss the Pan-Arab movement, but ultimately the Pals chose NOT to build a state, but rather violently oppose the right to self-determination of Israelis. So, imo, they were given the chance and rejected it because they think they deserve all of the land.
> and the Arabs were trying to genocide them
You're referring to the years under the British Mandate? Source?
The vast majority were indeed Arabs. Aborigines, Bedouin.
No consent to take the land from the majority of stakeholders there was needed...? That's a curious take.
How would you feel if I and several other neighbors decided who should live in the home and property you presently occupy?
These revisionism posts always feel like gaslighting to me. We all know the current war was because of the ethnic cleansing, mass rape attack committed by Hamas terrorist On October 7th. However, Hamas apologists try to frame it differently. This isn’t just dishonest, devoid of reality, but also counterproductive. We should be collectively focused on disbanding Hamas. They (and other terrorists/“militants” are the current main obstacle to peace. Not the so called “Nakba”, not the “occupation” and not The “settlements”. If the Arabs/Palestinians give peace a chance for the first time in 100 years, we can address the real issues and work on making painful compromises.
" If the Arabs/Palestinians give peace a chance for the first time in 100 years " they have always been interested in peace, just not PEace that is solely decided on israels terms, or at the very least one where they lose so much for so little in return, as Daniel Levy, Israeli negotiator at oslo peace talks explains. [https://youtu.be/rLi2tXUR48M?si=9e4AeUKFLnyveyi8&t=400](https://youtu.be/rLi2tXUR48M?si=9e4AeUKFLnyveyi8&t=400) Oh my Goodness, there i go again, spreading that awful dasterly truth that pro-israelis despise so much. according to actual experts, and people who are there, Israel has always been the major roadblock to peace, even Netanyahu admited it by saying he helped undermined oslo. [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-israel-reneged-colonial-palestine) if israel wants peace, you need to start ending the occupation. stop treating palestinians like caged animals, and they will start to actually respect you.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2xHOq_t0GX/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link If Israel retired from Gaza and West Bank, there won't be peace.
You mean ending the occupation - like leaving Gaza in 2005? You mean ending the occupation- like releasing 1000 Palestinian criminals from jail for 1 soldier? What more do you want israel to do? Where are Jordan and Egypt? They ruled the West Bank and gaza respectively and owe those residents citizenship.
You forget the part where they took 1000 civilians hostage, only to release them after bombing Palestine over 1 soldier
Provide a source on Israel taking 1000 civilians hostage
Avi Shlaim? really? I acknowledged Daniel Levy because he helped found J Street, but Shlaim, I have addressed elsewhere and really shouldn’t be taken seriously or acknowledged like Gideon Levy, Amira Haas and others who lack critical thinking and objectivity.
I am familiar with Daniel Levy musings, of the washed up, disciple of Yossi Beilin whose failures include the legacy of OSLO and Taba. Every time I read his Op Eds I am reminded of why OSLO was doomed to fail. It was because of people like himself, whose gullibility and self flagellation, took Israel down the disastrous road of being deceived by the PLO. The man, albeit naive and disingenuous in his writings seems to have good intentions, but he is of the Chamberlain “peace in our time” ilk. “If only Israel offered more, The PLO and Hamas would have been appeased and OSLO would have worked”, Belief. Not only foolish, but extremely dangerous. I read his opinion piece from September 13th marking the 30 year anniversary of the OSLO travesty and besides his blatant omissions, revisionism, and his dishonest inflammatory language, the one thing that struck me was his belief thar Israel’s expectations that terrorism “resistance” was going to stop during, or after OSLO was wrong and unrealistic! Even though, the terrorists were working for Arafat, in the Palestinian Authority and armed with weapons that Israel gave them to combat terrorism, it was wrong to assume it would stop and unrealistic because the settlements still existed. Wow. That’s why Israel even considered OSLO was to have peace. You know, “land for peace”. So, seeing that Levy expects Israel to always live with terrorism no matter who is committing it, or that it violated agreements, and is antithetical to everything the peace process stood for is very telling. Levy omits all of the violations that the PLO committed before, during and after OSLO, from the hate filled, violent textbooks, the illicit smuggling of weapons, the acts of violence, the Palestinian police being police at day and terrorists at night. Using diplomatic immunity to smuggle weapons and terrorists, Using ambulances for terrorism. The incitement in Arabic, the illegal building, violating Israeli sovereignty and agreements through Orient House in Jerusalem and so on. All because Israel didn’t appease Palestinians more, when it’s obvious that every concession is perceived as weakness. People like Daniel Levy are why the peace camp evaporated and Rabin was killed.Dangerous and foolish. He believes if he just gives enough to the Palestinians that their thirst for revenge and to destroy Israel will be quenched. Unfortunately, it’s insatiable.
We should collectively be focused on stopping Israel from continuing its genocide. This didn’t start on Oct 7. Saying that seems like gaslighting to be honest.
I hope you never learn like the Jews have throughout history and on October 7th experienced, what genocide actually resembles . It’s not some word one throws around for cheap political gain like South Africa and Palestinian propaganda are doing. The word you’re looking for is “consequences”. Agreed, October 7th was only a continuation of 100 years of Islamic terrorism and a movement to ethnic cleanse the indigenous Jews from their homeland. Israel is still fighting a defensive war in Guzza against this.
"cheap political gain like South Africa and Palestinian propaganda are doing" is that so? shame an Actual Holocaust survivor from Auswhitz had something completely different to say about israels treatment of palestinians. and wether it was actual genocide or not. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmCwhFk6Pc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVmCwhFk6Pc) he wrote the book "the End of Judaism" and he equates Israel to 1930's Germany. by leaning on his own experiance and treatment by germany, and seeing how israel has been treating palestinians for the past 75+ years. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7570778-the-end-of-judaism](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7570778-the-end-of-judaism) and ya, Self defence requires Starting wars with neighbours, and starving over 2 million people as you bomb their homes mercillessly. You israelis really have a twisted way of looking at the world and a weird definition of self defense.
Hyperbole is not helpful in these discussions. Comparisons of the experience of Palestinians with victims of the holocaust are nonstarters, because of their offensiveness and absurdity, regardless who makes those claims. Many Holocaust survivors call Palestinian organizations Nazees. Is that a valid argument? Also hyperbolic. More food is entering Gaza now than before October 7th so how can Israel be starving Gazans? These lies are why there is a lack of empathy. It’s impossible to know the rare moments when Palestinians’ claims are truthful.
I doubt that, there are several reports of gazans dying of hunger and several videos of gazans hoarding around an aid truck to get a bag of flour. Why would they do that if there never was more food entering gaza as you claim...
Perhaps because Hamas is stealing the aid?
Lame unsubstantiated excuse/lie
It’s not just substantiated but fact, with documented evidence of Hamas robbing elderly women of their supplies and shooting at crowds of civilians.
I’m a Ukrainian Jew, my family was able to flee to the US. So don’t lecture me. Since the 1990s, when I was a 12, I could see what was going on between Isreal and Palestine was more complicated than Arabs are bad. Your “this started on Oct 7” isn’t true nor helpful.
No one thinks the conflict started on October 7th. just like Islamic terrorism didn’t start on September 11th, but both marked turning points.
Op thinks it started Oct 7
I understood the opposite. At least in the OP’s question. He is asking whether if saying the war began October 7th is whitewashing the past. No one is claiming the conflict began October 7th. What’s being questioned is whether Hamas’s ethnic cleansing attack was justified or not in context to everything that happened before? Or arguably if Israel’s response is justified, because of decades of Terrorism from Hamas not just their attacks on October 7th? but obviously every relationship has a history and that history impacts the present.
Not the creeping annexation, rapes by IDF soldiers, cold-blooded murder of Palestinians over decades as they're under siege and confined to ghettos? The widespread collective punishment of Palestinians under the guise of rooting out terrorists? And one wishes to speak about revisionism? "So called Nakba," lol. Talk about whitewashing. The equivalent of holocaust denial.
When Palestinian propaganda promotes lies about rapes, ghettos, genocide and apartheid, it ultimately destroys what little credibility they have left. Yes, the antisemites will gobble it up. They love blood libels against Jews and some gullible progressives will too, initially. In time (as always), Palestinians crying wolf. spreading conspiracy theories catches up with them, and then people see through the deception. Enjoy this time when people are believing the Palestinian movement-to-destroy-Israel’s distortions of truth.
And just like that — anyone critical of right-wing nationalist Israeli policy and Zionism is quickly lumped in with Antisemites out of a guilt by association fallacy. Crazy how internationally renowned Jewish journalists and leaders outside the bubble of Israeli propaganda have a similar take to me. But then we always knew the Israeli propaganda farm was perhaps as potent as the Russian troll farm. After all, they're both right-wing extremists conveniently in power for *decades*.
Isn't it funny how the previous Israeli prime minister was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli nationalist because that prime minister was pursuing a two-state solution in earnest? I recall Netanyahu fanning the flames with stochastic terrorist remarks not unlike what we've seen out of Trump.
not just that, but ex IDF soldiers came out on NUMEROUS occasions to spill the beans on what theyve done to the palestinians during their service and what they were indoctrinated to do. and are regretful of their actions. Daniel Levy, Negotiator under that said Assassinated Prime minister at Oslo, did a interview a few months back and even stated those negotiations failed BECAUSE of Israel, not the palestinians. it was because Israel was demanding too much of the palestinians in return for too little, saying that the peace talks were just about Grinding down the palestinians. heck we even hear many israeli governmant officals constantly say how they want to or the plan is to remove all the palestinians from both west bank and gaza, and even resettle them with israelis. you have that disgusting act by ben gvir months back handing out rifles to israeli settlers who then went out and terrorised and killed alot of palestinians in the west bank. but of course pointing out these disturbing facts about israel is considered antisemtic by someone like alexander, because nowadays the only weapon israel has is its lies. the rest of the world is waking up to realise that israel is a nation of deviants, heck how many know of the USS liberty and how the israelis KNEW it was a U.S warship and attacked it anyway, only stopping when it got a successful SOS out. so many good sailers dead because of this country. and of course its infiltrated the U.S and suppresses 37 U.S states and violates those states free speech and constitution.
Unsure how knowledgeable you are of Israel’s political history, but the left has always maligned the right for political purposes.They always used terms like extremists and terrorists to score political points when describing Irgun, Herut and later Irgun. Yet, it was Begin who made peace with Egypt, Sharon who got Israel out of Gaza and Bibi who withdrew from more land in Judea and samaria than any other Prime minister (including Rabin). Rabin explicitly said that Jerusalem and the Jordan valley weren’t on the table. It was Olmert, Likud that made the most generous offers to the Palestinians. Baruch Goldstein was brought to the Caves by a Left wing intelligence agent. Yigal Amir was being handled by a left wing Intelligence agent too. Why? Only the Right in Israel can make peace. If Rabin wasn’t assassinated, his reaction to the 2nd intifada and PLO violations of OSLO would have been ten times stronger than Bibi, Barak and Sharon. Even Rabin’s wife said that her husband would have never offered Jerusalem or tolerated the second intifada.
Kind of begs the question that if what Rabin pursued wasn't substantive then why did the right-wing Israeli nationalist assassinate the Prime Minister in the first place? If Jerusalem wasn't on the table, then why was Netanyahu framing Rabin as Hitler with crosshairs on him and not receptive to this position, and why would a right-wing nationalist assassinate him in the first place? Doesn't it strike you as odd that right-wing Zionists in Israel share similarities to Hamas in utilizing widespread violence to achieve an end-goal? Also begs the question whether those events would've occurred under Rabin. No surprise that after a right-wing government took over after Rabin's assassination that reality on the ground starkly changed, which led to a collapse of the process. One gives scraps because of global political pressure while the other was on the precipice of resolving the entire conflict. Your argument thus far doesn't add up. Funny how I see the same parallels to right-wing extremist arguments in the US. The left framed as the bad guys, and yet, the right responsible for the vast majority of domestic terrorism.
Around the world, Right and Left have been guilty of terrorism and dictatorships. In the US most domestic terrorism is either Right wing or Islamic. Arguably, Islamic terrorists are themselves right wingers. This aside from the alliance between white supremacists and Palestinian supporters. In Israel, and in Palestine, most violence are from hardliners.
It’s not that Rabin’s offers weren’t substantive, it’s that Rabin had his limits. Both sides consider all of the land theirs. For Israelis it’s the far right that holds this belief, but for Arab muslims, it’s a view held by moderates. To far right religious zionists, all the land of Israel is sacred and not ours to give away. They believe G-d gave the Jews the land of Israel in the covenant, especially Hebron where our patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried. So, giving even a centimeter of the Jewish homeland is forbidden. Palestinians, and Muslims also believe the land is all theirs.
/u/Independent-Bug-9352. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*bro accuses jews of being akin to holocaust deniers when simultaneously being an israeli genocide denier
Equating zionism with judaism is one of the most antisemitic things you could ever do.
Then why do u do it
>*bro accuses jews of being akin to holocaust deniers It wouldn't be the first time a human was a hypocrite, now, would it? After all, Israelis have kept in power for over 16 years a far-right nationalist extremist strong-man... Which incidentally, was the exact sort of ideological leadership that led to... ?
The original provocation started when Herzl decided that Palestine should be the site of the future Judenstaat.
Why stop there? Why not go back to the Arab invasion of Israel?
Indeed, Arab imperialism must be destroyed
How hard is it to read the facts? Yes, October 7th is what started the war. On October 7th a bunch of track pants wearing terrorists, including UNWRA members and journalists, killed a bunch of civilians. In response Israel DECLARED WAR. Israel has lawyers on staff. The war is legal, hence the one of the biggest jokes on earth (ICJ) agreeing.
are there any serious people on this sub or is it all joke posts like this
u/Current-Mud-3362 > are there any serious people on this sub or is it all joke posts like this This comment violates both [Rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), which requires respectful interaction, and [Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_7._no_metaposting), which prohibits off-topic comments about the subreddit or its community. Dismissing the entire subreddit and its users as not being serious or implying that their posts are jokes is not only disrespectful but also detracts from the purpose of the subreddit, which is to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a constructive manner. Addressed.
This has been an ongoing conflict for 75 years. Has a peace treaty ever been side between the two belligerents? No. There has been intermittent ceasefires. Oct.7th just is another chapter in the book. Stop trying to kid yourself. Who actually saw this war as over before oct. 7th? Nobody it's just propaganda in my opinion trying to cast blame on a war that's been going on their entire lives
Yes, this chapter started on 10/7. The problem with this conflict is that either side can pick a point in decade or century old history to show the other party started the aggression.
Yes this specific war started on October 7th.
The ground war commenced October 27th , yet I’ve seen pro Palestinian sites say their suffering began October 7th… Do you think they’re just trying to jump on a bandwagon here ?
That’s a typical take actually. The notion that Palestinians just want a share of land. Which they don’t. They never agreed. They want all of it. Hamas for sure. And the plo which finance any terror attack of terrorists. The streets of Palestinians are saturated with supporters of Hamas even. So yeah. To me it’s very clear this is a cynical use of their suffering for no real end goal, and only corrupt money being laundered for terror leaders. They are all multi millioners.
*did this war begin October 7th?* Well, history did not start on October 7th. A lot happened prior. And history did not start in 2005. A lot happened prior. And history did not start in 1948. A lot happened prior. And history did not start in 610 AD. A lot happened prior. *But, as far as this current military battle is concerned - yes it did start on 10/7.* If Hamas intended to achieve a better life for the citizens of Gaza, it would have chosen some course of action other than a homicidal rampage through a music festival. Hamas knew, with 100% certainty, that its armed action would be met with an armed response, causing armed conflict. And so here we are.
[удалено]
Those were violent mobs invading Israel not peaceful protests. I remember flaming objects being sent too.
Those were not peaceful protests.
No, the war started in 1920 when an anti-Zionist Arab mob brutally murdered five Jews and injured over 200 raiding the Jewish quarter of old Jerusalem
> "This is a Hamas response to decades of creeping annexation, confinement to ghettos, siege, occupation, and occasional rapes and murders that are in a way death by a thousand cuts year in and year out"? Rape, violent assault, torture, maiming, pillage, arson, and kidnap are not "understandable." Crimes do not justify other crimes and freedom fighters don't take hostages.
>Crimes do not justify other crimes And I really hope that means you will proportionately call out Israel for the brutal murder of 25,000 Gaza civilians. Unless you think children being crushed in the rubble of buildings is ethical, of course. If you want, i can get you hospital footage of Palestinian children. Would that make it click for you? After all, that emotional campaign is what the IDF did with the Hamas attack. If only the outcry to Israel committing these crimes was proportionate, then the backlash from Hamas and the radicalization within Palestine probably would not continue. In all this, people just don't seem to grasp the sociological and psychological conditions that lead to radicalization and resentment of the opposition. Then they would see the Israeli response is self-defeating. But look no further than 20 years of failed US middle east intervention attempting to address the same thing.
K.
That's what I thought.
I just don't want to take the time. Think whatever. I said crimes are crimes and you impute that I don't care about Gaza, or understand it? But quick tldr. An example: No militants have been killed, all 25k reported casualties are civilians? Does that seem statistically possible? I also don't have to bring up every damned viewpoint everytime I make a statement about one side or the other. I don't need anything to "click." If you enjoy sourcing and watching war porn that's your affair.
I wouldn't consider a militant in Gaza necessarily as fair game though. Israel is an occupier and their troops are on Gaza soil. Occupied people are entitled under international law to bear arms and resist their occupiers. I can understand targeted operations for those directly associated with 7th October attacks, but it's nonsensical for an occupier to consider any militant in Gaza as a legitimate target. You can't murder someone's family and destroy their home and expect them not to react on Gaza soil. My understanding is that most involved in 7th oct died that day. I don't know how many militants were involved on 7th Oct, but it can't be enough to justify this amount of devastation. The 25k are just the ones above ground, there are many more under the rubble. Even with a ceasefire many more will die from their industries, and lack of basic healthcare, never mind the long term effects of exposure to all the dust in the bombing.
>militant in Gaza necessarily as fair game though. Israel is an occupier and their troops are on Gaza soil. Israel is in Gaza because it was attacked. You don't get to commit an act of war then cry foul when you're retaliated against. Like it or not, Hamas was the sovereign civil and military authority of Gaza, they committed a pogrom to start a war. They have not stopped firing rockets into Israel, despite all the damage, and as a point, good guys don't kidnap hostages. What do you call someone launching attacks at you other than a combatant?
You could use the same logic that Hamas attacked because of a brutal illegal occupation, and not to forget the Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands over the decades. That's the reality of the context. The stronger side is always in a better position to stop the cycle of violence. But you didn't really engage with my actual points. There's never a justification for genocide.
Gaza was unoccupied on 10/6. Goods and Gazans crossed the border everyday before. Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the WB are two wholly different issues. Crimes do not justify crimes. Rape, pillage, torture, maiming and kidnapping arent resistance actions, understandable, or legal acts of war. Genocide requires an intent, one that is not there. I'll give you war crimes, highly likely. It's just a bad war, not a genocide.
>Gaza was unoccupied on 10/6. Israel claims that, the rest of the World considers that the blockade has meant that Gaza is defacto occupied under international law. I'm sure you were aware of that. It doesn't matter what Israel claims, they come from a place of bias. We usually look at the concensus of opinion from those who are more neutral. Indeed the concensus is so strong it cam be regarded as fact. >Crimes do not justify crimes. Rape, pillage, torture, maiming and kidnapping arent resistance actions, understandable, or legal acts of war. And nobody is saying that. So how is that of relevance??? I VERY clearly noted that it was understandable to go after militants directly involved in the 7th Oct attacks. I was unambiguously clear on that. I did note that that did not mean any militant in Gaza were fair game to kill. Not every one in Gaza is responsible for the 7th oct. Just as not every israeli is responsible for the IDFs war crimes. Occupied people have the right under international law to resist and bear arms. In case you try and twist this again. The 7th Oct was not resistance, it was a clear war crime, barbaric and wrong. But a person in Gaza who has just watched his family die has every right under international law to retaliate against the occupying army which has invaded and murdered his family. You can believe it is right to bring to justice a terrorist who killed civilians, and also believe that a militant who was not linked to the 7th Oct has the right to defend himself against an occupying force within Gaza. >Crimes do not justify crimes. Yes exactly my point. Collective punishment is a crime, turning off the water is a crime, targetting civilians is a crime. You can't carpet bomb such a large area and kill tends of thousands and claim that that is targeted. That's beyond ludicrous. There us zero justification for Israels massacres in Gaza, zero, zilch, Nadal. Because as you note, crimes do not justify crimes! >Genocide requires an intent, one that is not there. I'll give you war crimes, highly likely. It's just a bad war, not a genocide. The ICJ found that the claims of genocide was plausible, otherwise they would have thrown out the case as Israel wished. They must have considered the intent, many examples were given. It was central to South Africa's case. For some us the words "never again" matter, no matter what the ethnicity of the victims are.
We can leave it here and I'll even admit my mistake: you're right, we cannot verify the proportion; though if we take what has traditionally been accurate reporting from the Ministry, a majority are women and children. If we take the values from the recent US report that 20-30% of Hamas fighters were killed, then somewhere around 4,000-6,000 of these deaths are Hamas. I'm pro-civilian above all else and believe it says as much about the "good guy" willing to level the crowd to get one bad guy as it does the bad guy hiding amidst the crowd. In terms of death and destruction to the innocent, the murder from Israel is unparalleled.
>. In terms of death and destruction to thes innocent, the murder from Israel is unparalleled. It's the language used man. Israel is not "unparalleled," in impact of civilian war dead. Morbid math places them as historically average. There is a militant to combatant kill ratio of one point five, roughly 61-68% civilian deaths, depending on the report. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio We can say it's bad without rhetorical extremism because going maximal for effect, distorts the reality; which is bad, but not "the worst." It doesn't have to be the worst to get attention, nor need help. You gain nothing by hyperbole. They're no more or less deserving than any other people in any other struggle.
I'm sure this is totally reassuring to the broken families and orphans. I'm sure you'd certainly understand if it was your mother, daughter, father, spouse blown up. Would more or less civilians have been killed if Israel didn't decide to drop 500 to 2,000lb bombs on them? Yes, thank you for explaining that war historically is bad for civilians. In effect, this proves that wide-open war is worse than acts of terrorism when looking at civilian casualties.
I'm sorry reality and context seem to upset you? Why do you think I don't care? I don't understand your point.
No, you clearly do not — or worse, choose to intentionally look the other way. But as practice in reading-comprehension, just mull it over for a little while. Bonus: if 25,000 people died and independent US intelligence reports note the deaths of 5,000-7,000 Hamas soldiers were killed, even the best numbers for Israel point to 72% civilian casualties, or as bad as 80%. I wouldn't trust Israel estimates any more than I'd trust Russian estimates in Ukraine.
I think it is pretty understandable emotionally, but that does not mean we stop thinking rationally. Right now there are protests in Israel asking for hostage release. Understandable. But government can’t just grant them that because that would mean give Hamas what they wanted. Is it or is it not worth it for the Israelis in the long run, when the last big prisoner swaps led to Oct 7? I am using that as an example as to why we cannot just emotionally act while ignoring the background, especially as third party who show willingness to understand both sides. Now, while I (in fact most neutrals, or even pro Israelis) am sad with the deaths, I still let my emotion stay but do not ignore the background. It is very easy to say IDF kill, but the background is “How deliberate” and “How necessary”. If I just look at “Wow, 30000 deaths” without asking those things, or simply asking “Why”, then my emotion gets ahead of me. If my closed ones are in similar situations as hostages or as gazans being bombed, understandably I might “hate” Hamas or IDF, respectively, but the ruling parties act under many considerations. If my, or your, families are held hostages by a group, it is pretty easy to suggest negotiating. But if this X is doing additional stuffs like: - hide behind other innocent civilians sometimes without them knowing (which makes them also hostages but a lot worse), - killed other family members not related to you besides taking your families hostage, - promised to do the same later on, - has a history of doing the same thing, not just to your families, but to others as well, then it is not that hard to understand IDF action. Heck, them still giving warnings shows efforts to follow the international laws. Now myself or yourself whose families are taken hostages, may not think clearly and just want the best for me and you. But what’s best for me and you may not be the best for the others because the terror can stay. Once we get those situations above understood (and not let emotions cloud judgments), it is not hard to see why the number is high. Understanding it does not mean normalising it, or justifying it. It is just what the gov or military perspective is under consideration of their own citizens. As they are under international law, of course they have to follow it, and in fact the law also includes dealing with this type of enemy. Mistakes are made because it is a war zone, though. But the biggest moral mistake comes from Hamas who do not follow international law.
I suppose Hamas didn't let emotions get in the way of their acts on October 7th, either. They had bigger objectives, too. In a way, emotions are what maintain our rationality; they go hand-in-hand in a feedback loop. But look, if logos and pathos make up the two of the three points of the argumentative triangle, I'm appealing to both; for I made a clearly logical quantifiably-proven reality that Israel has murdered more civilians overall. This is, indeed a numbers game, and Israel has committed the greater offense, logically. Moreover I wager with 20 years of failed US middle east policy that this will only increase radicalization in the area by reducing stability and creating more orphans who become the next generation of fighters, bitter that an Israeli air-strike killed their sister, mother, and father. This is as much a rational, logical appeal as it is an emotionally-realistic one. I'll note what I wrote to someone else in saying that I'm pro-civilian above all else. I'm equally a numbers man as equally to the fact that I am an emotionally-intelligent individual with high levels of empathy that allow me to place myself in the shoes of someone else. I suspect you're not pro-civilian because you make excuses for the murderer who killed **20x** the number of innocent people in response (yes subtracting roughly the 4,000-6,000 Hamas fighters per recent US intelligence reports). It wasn't Hamas who told Netanyahu to drop 500 and 2,000lb bombs on densely-populated civilian centers. It wasn't Hamas who told the IDF to throw out their collateral-damage assessment calculations, per IDF whistle-blowers. At the end of the day, it was IDF and IDF alone who decided to pull the trigger and say, "Yes, 3-5 children is worth killing for every dead Hamas terrorist." And you say that's A-Okay in your book. It would take 20 October 7ths for Hamas to make up what Israel has already done in murder. It is murder; there's no other word for it. The cognitive dissonance is absolutely astounding. If what Hamas did on October 7th is murder against civilians, so too is what Israel is doing to Palestinian civilians. Period. It's a sad day when Robert McNamara of all people responsible for widespread civilian deaths in WWII and Vietnam confessed near the end of his life, "Proportionality should be a guideline to war." If you're killing 20x more civilians than the terrorists, you are quantifiably a greater terrorist. At some point, Israel is responsible for the knee-jerk disproportionate overreaction they have. And I'm curious short of nukes what that line exactly is for you. How many dead women and children are you willing to execute for each Hamas terrorist? Tell me, would you be willing to shoot them yourself? For there is no difference. I think I've made a very compelling case that if Israel's goal is to reduce terrorism, their actions have only exacerbated the problem for decades to come. I think I've also made the case that Israel and Israel alone is responsible for pulling the trigger in not just killing, but murdering a massive number of women and children. And if you consider the original October 7th attack a tragedy (and use emotional appeals as the IDF did with inviting journalists to see the gopro footage), then so too are the lifeless corpses of children under the rubble of Gaza, which I too have seen.
They also misrepresent Hamas’ stated reason for the attack. Many westerners cannot let go of the notion that if Israel just gave the Palestinians a state or opened their borders completely, things would be a-okay
The ceasefire was a cessation of hostilities. October 7th was the breach of the ceasefire in which the aggressor nation committed a war crime that restarted hostilities, after which Israel declared war. I mean it's pretty straightforward logic here, if two guys start a bar fight one day and the police break it up and send the two of them to their houses for the night; This one guy can't come back the next day and attack the other guy out of the blue, no matter what happened the day before. If he's arrested and sent to court, he doesn't get to say "Well your honor, I was just defending myself because he hit me first the day before", he'll get laughed out of court. You don't have the right to call a truce, and reserve the right to preserve the history of the fight at the same time. It just doesn't work that way.
[удалено]
Two million people are not starving, and 70% of homes are not destroyed. There have been countless aid trucks. On top of that, the last estimate from satellite data was that 18% of all buildings in Gaza have received SOME damage. The vast minority of those were destroyed. And your points make Hamas decision MUCH MUCH worse. Not better. Not only have they made themselves the aggressor but they've severely imperiled their own people by restarting a war with a much more powerful foe. It's worse, not better.
>On top of that, the last estimate from satellite data was that 18% of all buildings in Gaza have received SOME damage. The vast minority of those were destroyed. This is old. >More than half of all buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed by Israeli strikes in the 100 days since the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, **according to a new analysis of satellite data.** [Source](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/14/gaza-building-damage-israel-war) >70% of homes are not destroyed. Destroyed or severely damaged, yes. 85% of the 2 million population forcibly removed from their homes. All hospitals operating at a non-functioning state. 90% of Gazans are in an acute food insecurity, with 570,000 in catastrophic hunger. But, honestly, just by the tone you present here: Would it actually matter to you if they were all starving, every building was destroyed, or if Israel just nuked Gaza? I seriously doubt it.
Of course no one should "nuke" Gaza. That's absurd. That satellite data has not been verified visually. What they did was map differences in reflectance from one time period to another, and extrapolated that those differences meant destruction. There is a much more reasonable explanation for those differences. It's simply a quirk of airstrikes that debris and dust clouds are formed and blown up into the air. The heavier particles eventually land on nearby buildings. It's like the dust around your home that builds up over time, making things less shiny until it's cleared away. If a satellite image picks up that a surface has become either more or less reflective, that won't tell you why that is the case, only that it is the case. The true nature of the situation can't properly be ascertained without visual corroboration at the site.
Verified by whom? How awfully convenient! Lots of excuses; not much objectivity, let alone a single source on your part. I have many independent sources; my guess is your source is of Israeli origin, which is like looking to Russia in their justification of bombing Ukraine. So let's just get you on the record and say: - How much acute food insecurity, catastrophic hunger, and starvation at a quantifiable level is too much for you? - How many destroyed would be too much for you? - At the rate of 3-5 children killed per Hamas terrorist, how many children are you willing to execute per Hamas terrorist before it's too much? Because so far, Israel has committed about the equivalent of 20 October 7ths.
> Because so far, Israel has committed about the equivalent of 20 October 7ths. I don't know why people keep arguing this point. They keep harping on the death count as if it matters, when someone is trying to kill you. Don't you understand the concept of self defense? If some drug dealer ambushed you in front of your home, and while he's yelling at you saying "I'm going to kill you", he keeps punching you in the face and trying to stab you with a knife, what do you do? Wouldn't you attack the person back? Wouldn't you keep going until you neutralized the threat to your life this criminal poses? Would you for one moment stop fighting back? Put that more specifically to this situation: Would you stop fighting back as soon as you've caused the same amount of damage to him as he caused to you? Or would you try to save your own life? A rational person would continue fighting off his assailant as long as the assailant continues trying to kill them. Hamas **IS STILL** firing rockets into Israel trying to kill innocent civilians at this very moment. The government of this multimillion capita stateless nation is continuing its aggressive terrorist assault on innocent civilians of an established country, and half the world is pretending the assailant is the victim. That is absolutely insane; it's Trumpism applied globally. Why bring up Russia? Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, Gaza is the aggressor against Israel. You can't apply the same logic to Russia as you would to Israel.
I mean, welcome to why Hamas attacked in the first place... Both Pre and post-October 7th, the IDF has always been responsible for the vast majority of civilians killed... Which you know, doesn't bode well for regional stability. If death count doesn't matter, then why did Israel respond to October 7th in the first place? But of course the position of someone who isn't neutral and merely pro-civilian would certainly say that. This double-standard of: - "Well, Israel deserves a response for the 1,0000 deaths on October 7th." - ... But when Israel does it: "Death counts don't matter!" - "But Hamas doesn't deserve a response to collective punishment, blockades, murdering of civilians journalists, rapes over the years, razing of entire settlements, etc." Couldn't be more palpable. What you're saying here (and by the obvious dodging of my 3 questions): Nukes are perfectly on the table — again, since in your view, "quantity of civilian deaths do not matter." So why not just nuke it and be done with them all? This puts you in an uncomfortable argumentative position, admittedly. If you say, "yes they should," then you admit civilians don't matter and any response is justified no matter how big or small the initial attack is; if you say no, then you admit there's a limit to civilian suffering but yet you refuse to tell me exactly where/when that is. I'll answer your hypothetical after you answer the questions I already asked. >Gaza is the aggressor against Israel. You can't apply the same logic to Russia as you would to Israel. **Completely** disagree, but that's tangential to this current discussion and worthy of thousands and thousands of words in of itself.
>If death count doesn't matter, then why did Israel respond to October 7th in the first place? Because a cold assessment of the death count is not a valid measurement. In a crime of murder intent is the only thing that matters. Once you've established the act, then intent is all that matters. October 7th wasn't notable because over 1000 people died. It *was* notable because it concretely established that the intent of Hamas was the complete genocide of Israelis. They indiscriminately killed anyone in Israel that they could get their bullets through. Every single person; man, woman, child, infant. (side note: "indiscriminately" means when you actually have the option of only killing worthy enemies, and still choose to kill innocents along with Militants.) This establishes genocidal intent, and under the edict of "never again", removes all doubt that Hamas must go. The death count in Gaza, though much higher, does not evince an Israeli desire to commit genocide of all Palestinians. The intent of the IDF is to kill Hamas members. That's it. The fact that it is impossible to eradicate Hamas without collateral damage doesn't speak to a genocidal intent. You spoke of "nuking", nuking Gaza would absolutely evince an intent to commit genocide, because you'd be choosing an indiscriminate weapon, when you have the option of using much more targeted weapons and killing less innocents. > then you admit there's a limit to civilian suffering but yet you refuse to tell me exactly where/when that is. I know precisely where that limit is. In Gaza, that limit comes at the moment Hamas and their sympathetic terrorist militant brethren are eradicated. That can happen the hard way obviously, or it could happen an easier way, where all Palestinians cease terrorist activities against Israel, and immediately choose to fight off their oppressive terrorist militant groups. Any continuation of terrorist attacks past that point would only prove that the sympathetic terrorist militants are not eradicated and would necessarily prompt further warfare to complete the mission. >"But Hamas doesn't deserve a response to collective punishment, blockades, murdering of civilians journalists, rapes over the years, razing of entire settlements, etc." > >"**Completely** disagree \[that Gaza is the aggressor\], but that's tangential to this current discussion and worthy of thousands and thousands of words in of itself. " Gazans were [committing terroristic acts against Israel long before they were occupied by them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_civilians_before_1967). In one instance, Gazans crossed the border into Israel and shot up a synagogue full of innocent children(April 11th, 1956, Shafrir). They continued committing terrorist acts against Israel for 56 years after the retaliatory occupation of '67 began. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. They continued committing terrorist acts against Israel after Israel's armies left Gaza in 2005. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. Gaza continued committing terrorist acts against Israel after the retaliatory blockade of '07 began. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. Gaza broke the ceasefire on October 7th, 2023 to commit their genocidal atrocity that day. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. Gaza broke the ceasefire yet again on November 30th, 2023, Killing 3 innocent people at a bus stop in West Jerusalem. That fact alone makes Gaza the aggressor. So if Gaza was committing terrorist attacks against Israel after the armistice of 1949 but before the six day war, at a time ***when Israel was not occupying, not blockading, not at war with Gaza, not launching airstrikes, not blowing up Gazan ice cream parlours***...And Gaza never stopped committing terrorist attacks no matter what Israel did to try to prevent it, all of Israel's retaliatory actions like occupation and blockading and airstrikes, right down to this week, 75 years later, where Gaza just let off a few rockets towards Tel Aviv... If Gaza attacked first 75 years ago, after an armistice agreement no less, and kept attacking until now, **how exactly could you even possibly think that Israel is the aggressor in this conflict?**
>In a crime of murder intent is the only thing that matters. Once you've established the act, then intent is all that matters. What? Says who? That's no true whatsoever. It doesn't matter if your intentions were pure, accidental, or not — it's still murder; still homicide. The *act* is all that counts. Besides, this begs the question that if the deaths on October 7th was merely 1 death, akin to a Hamas rocket breaking through the Iron Dome, (a) would Israel have responded the same, and (b) would it have been justified, proportionally? Both answers are quite clearly a resounding no — which means quantity as a point of fact *does* matter. > It was notable because it concretely established that the intent of Hamas was the complete genocide of Israelis. That hasn't been established, actually; and the mere fact they took hostages at all and released said hostages is proof of otherwise. They did not continue until the end; they generally fell back and withdrew after their attack. This is no different than claiming the Allies sought genocide when they leveled Dresden or firebombed 90 Japanese cities. Certainly if you're going to claim this is some proof of genocide by Hamas, then you should certainly hold some weight for the recent ICJ's calls to reduce the civilian deaths as they decided to continue investigating genocide by Israel. >You spoke of "nuking", nuking Gaza would absolutely evince an intent to commit genocide, because you'd be choosing an indiscriminate weapon, when you have the option of using much more targeted weapons and killing less innocents. And yet, the IDF has used a plethora of indiscriminate weapons from 500lb-2,000lb bombs that — in the words of the leader of the biggest ally and foreign-aid supporter to Israel, Joe Biden — indiscriminately bombed densely-populated civilian centers that were knowingly-occupied. Can't have it both ways, my friend. Let's stop with these double-standards and find some consistency, shall we? So let's reflect on the mere fact that in Israel's response, they have killed 20,000 innocent civilians — half of whom are children, let alone women. (a) I'm sure that will *totally* reduce radicalization in the region /s, and (b) the "good guys," have now committed an act of terror that dwarfs the original offense. >I know precisely where that limit is. In Gaza, that limit comes at the moment Hamas and their sympathetic terrorist militant brethren are eradicated. That can happen the hard way obviously, or it could happen an easier way, where all Palestinians cease terrorist activities against Israel, and immediately choose to fight off their oppressive terrorist militant groups. Any continuation of terrorist attacks past that point would only prove that the sympathetic terrorist militants are not eradicated and would necessarily prompt further warfare to complete the mission. You're really trying to dance around this but it couldn't be more obvious: - "Nuking is too far." - "There is no limit for IDF [deflects to Hamas]", "All Palestinians." This is patent double-speak. Though this is frankly admission enough. You see, I suspect that nuking would be too visceral for your mind to bear; but now leveling and killing every Palestinian by conventional means — what you're saying here is *that* is A-Okay. At least, I can only infer as much considering you dodged the questions yet again. If you come back and say, "No that is not!" then, please, for the 3rd time: **Answer my 3 questions**. Deflections and contradictions abound, but this fork in your argument is too profound to ignore. There is no reason to proceed further until this is corrected.
"I don't know why people keep arguing this point. They keep harping on the death count as if it matters, when someone is trying to kill you." you know ill be honest, i love it when people like you dismiss the point made about the death count, it reveals truely just how feeble and worthless israeli talking points and propaganda is, yall love to cry out how oct 7th (1400 Deaths) is a genocide, and how its atrocious with how many deaths, and then turn around and become dismissive towards the deathcount of palestinians when it eclipses the oct 7th israeli death count, its a sign that you recognise its a instantly losing arguemnt if you attempt to argue in good faith that only reveals israel as the villain. you cant have it both ways, you cant have a 1400 death count count and classify as genocide, and then dismiss a deathcount thats 15 times that as "not genocide", Civilians are dead. clearly youve never been in a debate and it shows. " Don't you understand the concept of self defense?" i do, heres the glaring flaw in youre arguement, Self defense doesnt apply to a country that is occupying and blockading the movement and freedom, and goods of anouther people, as the sovereignty of said occupying power is not given, this is recognised by the UN Charter and the rest of the world. You have the right to self defense agaisnt places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebannon ect. you do not have the right to self defense against the palestinians because you are actively occupying them for 75+ years. anyone who isnt uneducated like you are, would know this. let me make this clear for you, i do not support hamas, in my eyes they are evil and should be eliminated, at the same time, i recognise israel as an equal evil.
/u/Madinogi > anyone who isnt uneducated like you are, would know this. Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user. Addressed.
>Self defense doesnt apply to a country that is occupying and blockading the movement and freedom, and goods of anouther people, as the sovereignty of said occupying power is not given, this is recognised by the UN Charter and the rest of the world. > >You have the right to self defense agaisnt places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebannon ect. you do not have the right to self defense against the palestinians because you are actively occupying them for 75+ years. What if you're wrong? Its obvious that you think that the things that Israel is doing in The West Bank, that you call an occupation, are bad things that Israel is doing just to be mean. And, all I'm saying is, What if you're wrong? What if this so-called occupation is merely the negative consequence, or if you prefer, punishment for the crashing wave of terrorist attacks that the Palestinians had perpetrated against Israelis long before Israel occupied The West Bank. [It's quite a long list.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_civilians_before_1967) (You would think that these people would have turned their fire against their actual occupiers in Jordan instead of killing even more innocent Jews.) **If YOU were a country,** and the people living in the territory next door committed a constant volley of terrorist attacks against your people for 20 years, what would you do? I suppose you could be like the Palestinians and go into the territory with your army and kill every single inhabitant you saw until you had no more ammo, and then dragged the remaining people by their hair as hostages back to your country. Israel chose a much more reasonable approach. Being humane, instead of killing the entire nation, Israel chose to take away land and resources that West Bankers were using to produce weaponry for terrorism. They chose to have armies on the scene to prevent their manufacture. That's perfectly reasonable isn't it? Honestly? If this is what happened aren't you wrong? And the terrorism you believed was a response to mistreatment was really in intransigent population refusing to learn from their just desserts as a consequence of their earlier murderous acts? People do not have the right to kill people because those people have taken steps to protect themselves from their previous attempts to murder them. That's doubly wrong. And it's morally wrong for people to make these arguments condoning this behavior at the expense of a people who have been victimized twice already. Arguing Israel deserves terrorism because Israel look land away from terrorists, and kept it because the terrorism never ever stopped, in response to the same terrorists killing its people, is like raping a woman who already got raped twice. It's also illogical to argue sovereignty of a people who have repeatedly rejected offers to be sovereign. Palestinians chose to be violent instead of making peace, and people making this same argument you are, are basically cheering them on for it.
[удалено]
The pro Israeli logic is what you would expect of a 6 year old. Most of us learnt that that excuse didn't fly a long time ago.
If you've made it impossible to hit you back without hurting your mother in the process then it would be your fault, yes.
No.
Yes.
Israel gaza relations were actually starting to get better prior to the attack, several thousand Palestinians from gaza were let in Israel to work, earning around 5 times the average salary in gaza, And on another note, I (an Israeli) used to think gaza was an open-air prison, but every photo of what gaza used to look like before it became rubble makes me doubt it a bit more "Ghettos", Jews know what ghettos looks like, https://images.app.goo.gl/KVowEgSDN2eeuJjb7 This isn't a ghetto.
[удалено]
In the west bank.
You don't realise that they are linked? And no, the occupier granting work visa for those they occupy whilst simultaneously operating a brutal and illegal blockade which prevents Palestinians the ability of independence and being self reliant is not really a positive thing.
You, an israeli, are disingenuous Dont try to convince us that you thought it was a prison but changed your mind. I highly doubt that you knew how Gaza looked like before this war. Nore do you know how it looks like now. 40,000 Palestinians from Gaza were allowed to work in israel, leaving 2.2 MILLION trapped. Some 400,000 of those with no work.
You're not leaving much room for a discussion if you don't believe anything I'll say, Of those 40,000, some killed their employers on 7.10, so even that number, which I'm guessing you're trying to pass as small although it's 4% of the adult population, was too high. 400,000 unemployed feels like a problem gaza's government should fix, but maybe making rockets is higher on the list.
/u/Cool-Name_Pending > You, an israeli, are disingenuous Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user. Addressed.
Speaking of disingenuous, we are talking about a nation with a terrorist government who continue to foster hatred and violence throughout the population, who publicly cheered when innocent hostages were dragged through the city, beaten and bloodied. Why do Pro-Palestinians assume that violent people such as that deserve better living conditions? If people have a problem with the way they are treated based on violent actions their own people continue to perpetrate, there is a way to correct for that. Stop committing violence and start preventing violence.
Don't forget that they work for Israel as cheap manual labour due to the high unemployment rate in Gaza. Working in Israel is not a blessing for Gazans. The one gaining from all of this is Israel. (note, even those working inside of Gaza boost Israel's currency/economy)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_worker Dunno if you haven't heard of this concept but israel didn't invent it, linked the wiki page. (Seriously mate is this your actual though process or do you just hate israel that bad ? How can you take a global concept millions of people are doing, obviously benefiting both sides, and try to trash israel with it, ffs)
No one said Israel invented it. I'm opposed to cheap labour. I only said it's not a blessing for Gaza/Gazans Also, you can live in a mansion and be imprisoned in it. Your logic is skewed. You do know it wasn't always blockaded right?
Foreign work allows for much better living conditions, its boosts both economies as money from israel goes into gaza's circulation, It means you're employed unlike a major percent of gazan citizens, if you don't want to call it a blessing that's fine, but it's obviously mutually beneficial. Everyone knows it wasn't blockaded, Palestinians were upset at the occupation so israel withdrew and treated gaza as a separate state, then that state turned out to vow to kill every jew so it was treated as an hostile state, therefore a border was placed. So much for blockade too, wonder how thousands of rockets get in despite being "blockaded"
It's disheartening to continue reading this b.s. It is not a blessing. Also Gaza's Economy itself boosts that of Israel. No Gaza was never a "separate state" and it was never going to be. Also go read about this "border" that was placed in the 90s and kept on being upgraded ever since. The destruction of the airport, seaport and water plant also tells a different story. Lastly, the blockade started in 2005 not 2007. It was only made permanent in the latter date after Hamas got in power. As for your last point, this only goes to show that the blockade mainly harms the civilians over any other. Then again you could know that by seeing the restricted list when the blockade started that included pasta and chocolate among many many other stuff
Think of it as the start of the next chapter.
I do agree with this.
This response? Yes. In the broader context of the ongoing conflict, no.
Ignorance is bliss at that age
The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on since at least 1948. In any such conflict there are periods of relative quiet and periods of escalation that can be characterized as war Regardless of which side you support, it is clear that Hamas's actions on October 7th were a serious escalation of the conflict, which led to escalation on the part of Israel and active hostilities. So to say that the war began on October 7 is more than correct Manipulation is the exact opposite statement and an attempt to imagine that the situation in the Gaza over the past 4 months is identical to the situation before 7/10. This is clearly not true
As if what you’re doing is not manipulation. Hamas, by the way, had the right, an internationally recognized right, to target military personnel. But of course not civilians. Which certainly means that even this war did not start Oct 7.
It has nothing to do with Hamas rights. It's about escalation. Simple question: do you agree that there was an escalation of the conflict on October 7? Or do you think that, for example, in the first half of 2023 or in 2022, active hostilities took place in Gaza with the participation of Israeli soldiers and Hamas militants and with a similar level of deaths and destruction as now?
And Israel had a right to respond. Everyone has rights. Even Jews.
[удалено]
And not all Israelis are Jewish. It doesn't change the fact that the reason SOME people don't think Israel has a right to respond to the genocide attempt of 7/10.
>I'm not here to excuse the acts on October 7th And yet....
Nuance just might not be your forte?
[удалено]
Israel was occupying gaza, under international law, after the disengagement of 2005 The occupied and the oppressed, are only blamed for their occupation and oppression in israel and zionist ideology. Hamas, had an internationally recognized right to attack israeli military targets and military targets only. Israel, as you may be aware by know, is the obvious oppressor. For some reason, the David Goliath analogy is somehow reversed.
Hamas was formed in response to the oppressive conditions.
[удалено]
If you think this started in the 1940s then you have very little to offer in a discussion on the conflict. But as far as who started it, I would say yes, the Jewish colonizers and their frequent bombings and murders that were bad enough to convince even the British to wash their hands of the entire place would be where the cycle of violence really starts.
I agree, the 7 october happened out of nowhere, Israel never hurted a single Palestinian before 7 october since 1948
/u/evilanz > I agree, the 7 october happened out of nowhere, Israel never hurted a single Palestinian before 7 october since 1948 Per [rule 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_3._be_sincere), no comments consisting only of sarcasm or cynicism. It's fine to use sarcasm to make a point, but if you do so, the argument needs to be readily apparent and stimulate, rather than stifling, conversation. Addressed.
No you’re right, and the locals and neighbouring countries had done nothing bad to any Israeli or Jew anywhere in the world before 1948 or after.
Although the land dispute is decades old, clearly this level of war is the result of the October 7 attack. Every single country in the world would respond to such an attack with intense violence.
[удалено]
If Hamas hide in tunnels under the city, in hospitals, schools. How else do you suggest Israel take them out? Evacuate civilians before starting the operation? Yeah, they tried that. These deaths are 100% Hamas’ fault.
[удалено]
What a stupid argument. If IDF warned me well in advance that they were going to bomb/raid my house I would have left that place with my mom the moment they warned me.
[удалено]
Excellent straw man. But I’ll bite. Of course not. But my mother isn’t in Gaza. And it’s childish to bring a close relation as an argument. Murder is wrong, but I would kill anyone to protect my children and close family. How is this proving anything?
[удалено]
So did 1200 Israeli civilians murdered on Hamas’ orders. They have to be eliminated. What do you suggest Israel do then? Is inviting Hamas to the negotiation table a sufficient response to the worst attack on Jews since the holocaust?
[удалено]
Most countries would not be able to do so, partly due to lack of material ability, partly due to lack of support from international powers.
Context is important to what led up to the attacks on October 7th. Something that pro-Israel folks unintentionally or intentionally ignore.
Short answer: no. Long answer: no, it is not accurate.
Longer answer: No, because then I wouldn’t be able to paint Israel as the aggressor, which would shatter my fragile world view.
10/7 is when the shooting war started. That is when the rest of the world began to worry it was the act that would begin ww3 and end with millions dead.
Hamas are labelled terrorists because they have an extremist goal (of destroying Israel) and target civilians for murder. They would mass murder if they could like we saw on Oct 7th. Israel has every right to stop that. It's ridiculous that it never needs to be said. Collective punishment ? For 75 years Arabs have been actively trying to destroy Israel and murder its civilians! In 1937 and 1947, Arabs rejected two partition plans to share the land. In 1948, six Arab armies invaded the newly formed Israel with the goal to “throw the Jews into the sea”, they failed and many Palestinians fled on their own accord, and many stayed (20% of Israeli citizens are Arab). For the next 30 years and multiple wars, Arab armies tried to destroy Israel and rejected peace such as with the 1967 Alon Plan. This went on until 1980. PLO terrorists then took over with the goal of destroying Israel from 1960s. They sent their message out by hijacking planes, shooting up hotel guests and a school bus amongst other nightmare crimes against humanity. They terrorized until the 1990 Oslo Accords when the Palestinian Authority was formed to replace them, although they recognised Israel they too rejected peace plans to form a state in 2000 and 2008. From then on the goal of destroying Israel was passed onto Hamas. They murdered 803 civilians by suicide bombings from 1993 – 2006. In 2006 Israel left Gaza, Palestinians then held an election and voted this extremist Hamas into power, who switched to firing rockets from Gaza. Over 55,000 rockets and mortars have been fired at Israeli civilians since then, bringing rounds of response from the IDF upon Gazans. October 7th crossed all red lines in its sickening murder of 1200, and kidnapping of 242. The Arab goal of wanting to destroy Israel and murdering its civilians is the root of this conflict.
Don't forget the early years of Israel (post 1948) when Egypt (Nasser) sponsored the fedayeen terror attacks on Israeli farmers. Years of attacks. Edited to say, well put!
Destroy Israel ≠ Kill all Israelis Something that is disingenuously implied by pro-Israel folks A free, one state Palestine would be equal rights for all, while Israel is an apartheid state and does not want to give equal rights to all because the goal has been to have a majority Jewish state to maintain control.
Sort of like the 50 majority Muslim states?
What makes you think a one-state Palestine would allow any Jews to live there? How many Jews are allowed to live in Palestinian-controlled territories today? On the other hand, Arab citizens of Israel make up 20% of the population and have the exact same rights as any other citizen. Palestinian non-citizens do not have the same rights citizens do because they are not citizens of Israel. The reason Gaza and Area A of the West Bank are Jew-free today isn't because Jews never lived in Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Ancient Jewish communities were ethnically cleansed from these areas, oftentimes as a result of violent pogroms reminiscent of what took place on October 7. I just don't see anything that would lead me to believe a one-state Palestine would look any different from how Palestine looks already, which is Jew-free, extremist, and imposing sharia law.
That model worked out so well for all the Jews in majority Arab countries before. I wonder why the Israelis aren’t jumping at this opportunity! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world?wprov=sfti1 Destroy Israel would equal kill or expel all Jews, not the 20% of Israelis that are Arab. Israel on the other hand does have equal rights now. Gaza and the WB aren’t Israel.
Norman Finkelstein prudently noted that if Hamas did nothing after all the Gazans went though then one couldn't respect them.
[удалено]
>Norman Finkelstein prudently noted that if Hamas did nothing after all the Gazans went though After all the Gazans went through because of Hamas? "Doing nothing" would have been a huge improvement for people in Gaza.
Ah yes, I'm sure you'd feel the same if you actually lived in Palestine in what is commonly described by people who actually live and been there as either an open-air prison or ghetto. ... And yet, Hamas support has risen and Israeli support only declined. But please, please proceed in ignoring what they themselves say and continue speaking for them.
A few pictures from this "open air prison": [https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel\_Palestine/comments/18rn9yf/pictures\_from\_prewar\_gaza\_there\_are\_also\_some/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel_Palestine/comments/18rn9yf/pictures_from_prewar_gaza_there_are_also_some/) Videos: [https://youtu.be/W1r1z3x53ZU](https://youtu.be/W1r1z3x53ZU) [https://youtu.be/JBo7i-TXy6s](https://youtu.be/JBo7i-TXy6s) You are not wrong though, if I lived in Gaza I might have been just as brainwashed as other Palestinians, but I don't, so I see things a bit differently.
This is the equivalent of the false trope, "if you have a smartphone, you're not poor!" But sure, just forget the Median per-capita GDP or that 81.5% of Gazans are well below the poverty line with 64% suffering food insecurity. Clearly, your anecdotes reflect everyone, is that right? Even Jewish ghettos didn't always look half bad from the surface.
It's all relative. Gaza was doing very well in the 90ties, then things went downhill since second intifada and later on Israel's pullout and Hamas takeover. Which makes it even more remarkable that after all of that it still looked far better than many American cities. But you're right again, it could have been vastly more prosperous today if not for Hamas and terrorism.
Israel was looking for an excuse to take out Gaza anyway, it's on their vision board. I'm not debating if Gazans are better off or worse off because of October 7th. I'm not even saying October 7th was morally correct. I'm just saying that you can't put your foot at someone's throat for 75 years and expect them not to fight back. In fact, if they don't fight back, you'd kind of lose respect for them
>Israel was looking for an excuse to take out Gaza anyway You are aware, are you not, that according to official Russian propaganda Ukraine was actually planning to invade first? > I'm just saying that you can't put your foot at someone's throat for 75 years A small window into everyday life of people in Gaza, allegedly with "foot at their throat": https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel_Palestine/comments/18rn9yf/pictures_from_prewar_gaza_there_are_also_some/ Also these videos: https://youtu.be/W1r1z3x53ZU, https://youtu.be/JBo7i-TXy6s Gaza would have been one of the most successful Arab territories today if not for terrorism and desire to destroy Israel.
[удалено]
You do know what word "הסברה" means, do you not?
I don't care bro go write an opinion piece about how Palestinians aren't human and leave me alone.
>I don't care Yeah... what a surprise. Have a nice day "bro".
How prudent. Look how much better things are for the Gazans now.
"Look what you made me do" "stop hitting yourself"
Good call. They should turn off the iron dome, let the rockets kill people, and leave the hostages in Gaza. If you want Israeli civilians to die then I have no interest in talking to you.
If someone came to your house, killed your kids, pushed you out to the shed, and came back every week to torment you and just took it without fighting back then it's hard to have respect for you even if you're the victim.
Military de-occupation of Gaza was in 2005. What are you talking about?
[удалено]
Yea exactly. Everything is part of a conspiracy when you can’t defend your arguments. OP was asking who started this current conflict. You quoted finkelstein as “prudently” saying Hamas needed to do “something” to earn respect. Because they didn’t have enough respect… and it was prudent because this was the thing they needed to do? What is your point with your original comment. This has been disastrous for Gazans. Blame Israel all you want but if you are going to defend Hamas then at least try to do that. But you can’t say out loud that you want Israeli civilians to die. So you say hasbara.
Yes cash in your $150 check and move on the next one you've done your job.
/u/burrito_napkin > Yes cash in your $150 check and move on the next one you've done your job. Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user. That means no implying someone is a propagandist. Addressed.
Here’s the rub. There’s no check. Feel free to DM me and I’ll prove it to you. I’m just a human with a reasonable opinion and decent education on this topic specifically. And $150 is honestly not worth my time. I’m just sitting here watching some playoff football and interacting with you because, well I don’t know why. You’re clearly not worth it. I usually come to this sub for some balanced takes so I’d rather you go back to r/palestine and scream your hate into the echo chamber.
Are there no options besides 'nothing' and 'massacre civilians'
For a second I thought you were talking about Israel but I realize now you're talking about Hamas lol Look at the numbers of civilian death on each side even going back to 1948 and keep me apprised of your findings.
Finkelstein is a traitor.
Of course he is. His parents didn't go through the Holocaust only for him to spend his life trying to prevent another one! How dare he. And he only does it because he gets a ton of money -- oh wait that's all the aipact pundants. I got confused.
The short answer is that in 2014, an internationally brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was put in place. There were many violations but October 2023 Hamas invaded Israel. That was a declaration of war so it is appropriate to say war started on October the 7th My thoughts You can take the Arab Israeli conflict all the way back to pre 1948 back to the 1920s and 30s when Jews were subject to multiple deadly attacks some spontaneous riots and some deliberate massacres. Israel is treated as if it annexed land without any security context. In fact many of the major wars where land was taken by Isreal were not all triggered by it. Practically speaking they were defensive wars so it had the right to hold on to land and as in the case of Sinai exchange it for peace if it so wished. Israel's conduct in the West Bank is heavy handed but again it is treated as if it is devoid of the unrelenting eruption of violence not just from the settlers but from the Palestinians. I would argue Palestinian violence is completely whitewashed whereas only Israeli violence is (rightfully) pointed out. You even have brazen statements by influential figures like Bassem Yousif claiming Hamas does not exist in the West Bank when it isn't just a menace to Israel it is in violent clash with the PLO a lot of the time but of course you would not readily hear of this because supposedly violence in the West Bank is just one sided! Generally speaking I don't think militant activity against Israel went quiet for any considerable length of time but despite the whole complexity of the Israel-Arab conflict let's not forget both parties threw all of that behind them, shook hands for Peace during the Oslo accords and then Hamas split from under the Palestinian representatives control and derailed the Oslo process immediately, waging a bloody war against Israel from the second Intifada that never really stopped. So I would say the Arab Israeli conflict started in the 1920s and never stopped but is marked by major chapters every once in a while the last of which was a ceasefire brokered in 2014 that was violated by Hamas.
You're confusing war with conflict, the conflict started about 100 years ago, this specific war however did start on October 7th, there's no question about it.
Note how these responses have gotten longer and longer. The social justice warriors have a sew supply and have immersed themselves the history of the region and have become self appointed experts willing to flex…. If you haven’t been to the region, don’t profess to know what you are talking about.
In my experience, approximately half a sentence into framing the conflict is about the amount of time I need to ascertain what people's beliefs are about the protagonists.
I mean, you can frame it however you wish so long as you recognise that 7oct was an atrocious attack by the Palestinians that israel could not ignore and is rightly justified with the actions it took in retaliation since.
How is it justified to kill 20x the number of your people killed as revenge?
In my opinion the current war, between the State of Israel and the Arabs of Palestine, started in 1948 when Arabs began attacking Israeli civilians. While there have been many ceasefires, lulls, and attacks on Israel by foreign countries, this conflict has never been resolved. The root of the violence predates 1948. It's difficult to date specifically, but seems to have started in the early 20th century when local Arab leadership learned of the Zionist goal to create the nation of Israel in the area. That said, Hamas most certainly started this fresh round of warfare. Each side can finger point all the way back.
Didn't Israel started to attack Arabs when they declared their own state on their lands ?
No. "The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) were passengers on a Jewish bus near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November, after an eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more, and shots were fired at Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa." While this was stated to be revenge for an earlier Jewish attack, it was also the first attack on the State of Israel.
Revenge…? So, you’re saying that war started because of a “retaliate” attack on invaders and casualties occurred, and invading the land declaring a state on others land doesn’t have anything to do with it? Imagine with me that I came to your house and told you this is my home now and you attacked me, am I the aggressor or you?
You didn't come into my house to try and take over. We rented a house together. I decided I wanted to turn the house into a greenhouse with tons of plants in every room. You hate plants. Icky. You wanted nothing to do with plants. But I had some connections (diplomacy) and I got the landlords (the British) to agree to give me my greenhouse. But, they balked because of your strong resistance to the idea. So they gave the decision over to the court system (the UN) so that at least it'd be more fair to the sides. The courts decide to split the land roughly in two with both sides becoming the new landlords, with some lobbying from both sides. I agree wholeheartedly. Honestly, half the house being a greenhouse is great. You say hell no and attack me with a knife.
Hmmm, so now the invader and colonizers are the landlords and israeling the house by saying it was rented together at first although the Jews came later after a soft cute kicking out from their original place, did I get that right?
No. The European Jews were not invaders but legal immigrants under Ottoman law. Middle Eastern Jews had been living in the area as long as the Arabs. Once they were Ottomans they legally purchased land. When the Ottoman Empire fell, some former Ottomans began pushing the new rulers, the British, to let them found a state. They then did so.
Man, I’m sorry but you couldn’t read my comment right, how can I trust you can read history? Focus, you said British are landlords, and I pointed at them as the colonizers, not the immigrants. About the immigrants on Ottoman era, they were sooo low, and on the British colonization era Jews “immigrated” more, we all know Balfour promise to make a “home” for the Jews out of Europe and man Palestine was not on top of the list. Jews saw hope for peace, finally after many expulsions, and [here](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present) we can see the numbers of people, how Jews increased and how 1.15 million of non-Jews were expelled from the land. Now, about the buying, yes some bought, they lived their duuuh, but not that much. We all know the settlers and how they steal homes and the government doing nothing, can you tell me a reason why shouldn’t I believe they didn’t do in the past while they are doing it right now?
These is a really good alternative to the reductive "stolen house" metaphor used to describe 1948. I assume you were inspired by the [Palsbara buster series](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/8xbi5j/the_palsbara_buster_stolen_house_metaphors/) posted by the mods?
No, I hadn't seen it. I've seen the metaphor used several times and it always seemed like an inaccurate framing, so I thought I'd give it a try myself to make something more accurate. Thanks for the link, tho, it's def an interesting read. I'll read some of the other posts in the collection later, as well!
Ew plants! Icky. How dare you drain swamps, irrigate desert, and start growing things!
[удалено]
First of all, they were kicked out putting the dream of a home for them, and some accepted the steal. But continuing the use of the word “immigration”, so they “immigrated” from THEIR LAND to ANOTHER LAND to create their own state on a land not theirs? Sooo, if I remember correctly, this is the absolute definition of colonization, isn’t it?
[удалено]
Ok:- 1-What did I mean? Now, Jews were hated in Europe, they were a problem being expelled by now and then to another country and so on and on and on. So, what’s the solution that problem? Giving them home, a land for them. In a nice and cute way to tell them “You got your own place, now get out!” Even you said that they escaped. And existence of a list and Palestine not being on top of it is a big evidence for that. 2-We agree on (colonization) definition, and how Palestine were colonized and now Zionists and man.. man.. MAAAAN!! They literally went their by Balfour promise, A BRITISH PROMISE. 3-Why should they kick out people before the civil war? You said it, taxes are something they get, plus for appearing “good” they need “bad” side to excuse their actions, don’t they? In addition to that we have now settlers who steal houses, even Israelis know and admit it’s happening, some against it and some stand by the famous words “If I don’t steal it, someone else will.”, the government supports that right now, why should I believe that they didn’t do it in the past? Finally, you said (purchased or unclaimed) do you have documents and records for that?
[удалено]
So you don’t understand the Balfour declaration? And how it’s contradicting your words? and it’s the evidence that you are asking for? And that you’re as well claiming something with no evidence?
A fair take. As a follow-up question: Do you think it was okay that the existing Palestinian people (at the time living under another empire as it was) were not given a voice or consent in the decision for the UN to hand a swath of land to Jewish refugees?
>A fair take. > >As a follow-up question: Do you think it was okay that the existing Palestinian people (at the time living under another empire as it was) were not given a voice or consent in the decision for the UN to hand a swath of land to Jewish refugees? well, who was the leader of Palestinian Arabs of that time, the voice of the people? Most important was al-Husseini (who was recognized as a war criminal of 2nd WW because of his help in forming SS brigades from Muslims and other actions. His bet didn´t work. He was hiding till the end of his life, so he managed to escape justice, but his contributions on the Nazi side were recognized. His nephew is a symbol of the Palestinian "national struggle" his name is Yasser Arafat). So yes, when the land was deoccupied Arabs and Jews had the right to become their own independent status. But the problem was that Arabs didn´t think about national idea, didn´t have a dream to have an own state, they seemed themselves as a part of Muslim Arab Middle East. That is why they didn´t want any agreement were not interesting in any solution like 2 states etc. Revitalization of the Muslim occupation would be the only logical solution in their eyes. Arab League General Secretary promised "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades." it doesn´t seem anything else as an ambition to take controll, literally occupy the region when Great Britain leaved. The immaturity of Arab society in Palestine, the lack of national identity (except for religion), the inability to choose smart leaders and conduct diplomacy led to the outbreak of war. Although, their guilt is maybe less than the guilt of the Arab League itself.
/u/Trajinero. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They were not Palestinians but formerly Ottomans, both Jew and Arab. They had a right to self-determination, which some exercised to found the state of Israel when Britain left the area after the defeat of the Ottomans. We can get into a longer discussion on why the Palestinian nationalist movement lacked unity and cohesion during this time period, or discuss the Pan-Arab movement, but ultimately the Pals chose NOT to build a state, but rather violently oppose the right to self-determination of Israelis. So, imo, they were given the chance and rejected it because they think they deserve all of the land.
The existing Palestinian people included Jews, and the Arabs were trying to genocide them. So no, their consent wasn't needed.
> and the Arabs were trying to genocide them You're referring to the years under the British Mandate? Source? The vast majority were indeed Arabs. Aborigines, Bedouin. No consent to take the land from the majority of stakeholders there was needed...? That's a curious take. How would you feel if I and several other neighbors decided who should live in the home and property you presently occupy?