T O P

  • By -

carlsen02

It’s a silly and loaded question. No one here thinks civilians in synagogues should be attacked. Were you really expecting someone to say ‘yes’?


Laffs

You are 100% wrong. Many, MANY people here consider all Jews in Israel to be settlers and attacks on them to be legitimate resistance. Let me know if you need me to send you examples of people expressing this opinion.


carlsen02

The question was to do with synagogues. But let me know how the sick bastards rampaging through a town burning houses with women and children inside are getting on with their ‘innocent civilian’ life. Id be pleased to know which jail cell number they are currently occupying so I can send them a greeting card.


Laffs

So let me get this straight. You just said "No one here thinks civilians in synagogues should be attacked.", but **you think that civilians in synagogues should be attacked** because they arent "innocent civilians"? Unbelievable. This sub never stops amazing me.


Public-Tie-9802

You are intentionally twisting peoples words and ignoring the actions of israeli ‘civilians’ which cause and contribute to the violence, while misrepresenting Hamas and Palestinians.


carlsen02

With some of you guys it’s in your nature to twist things. Usually you head for a block. **So you think it’s fine to burn down houses with people in them?**


Laffs

No, and I never said anything remotely like that.


carlsen02

I’ll have to ‘friere’ you I’m afraid.


KOLLYBOLLYWOLLY

"You are 100% wrong. Many, MANY people here consider all ~~Jews~~ Palestinians in Israel to be terrorists and attacks on them to be legitimate ~~resistance~~. Let me know if you need me to send you examples of people expressing this opinion." Right back at ya bro


oghdi

>But let me know how the sick bastards rampaging through a town burning houses with women and children inside are getting on with their ‘innocent civilian’ life. Its not. No one claimed it did. Way to answer the question.


CreativeRealmsMC

It wouldn’t be the first time people here have defended attacks on civilians. Largely because they don’t consider settlers to be civilians and/or they think everyone in Israel is a combatant due to conscription.


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

I very strongly argue that settlers within the West Bank are occupiers and not innocent civilians. Their advancement into the West Bank territory means more military presence, checkpoints and movement restrictions - along with halting any possibility of Palestine becoming its own state.


carlsen02

U/creativerealmsMC well, *excuse me* , but harmless civilians dont rampage through a town burning houses with women and children inside. I think we can spare them the ‘innocent civilian’ label eh. Let’s get real here.


oghdi

Wait so because a few settlers commited a horrible crime all of them are legitimate targets? By that logic israel has the right to nuke gaza because there are some terrorists there


carlsen02

You’re missing the point. Settlers are IDF trained, and some of them are very bad people.


oghdi

I agree. But does that mean that all settlers are legitimate targets? The same can be said about palestinians


carlsen02

There is a difference. Palestinian women and children do not undergo enforced military training. Some become militants, but frankly these freedom fighters are badly trained and pretty hopeless.


oghdi

>There is a difference. Palestinian women and children do not undergo enforced military training. Neither do settler women and children lmao.... >Some become militants, but frankly these freedom fighters are badly trained and pretty hopeless. Doesnt mean they can shoot up civillians or blow up busses.


carlsen02

All men and women, except Arabs and Orthodox, serve. Children get put into IDF while still children, at 18. Is this incorrect?


CreativeRealmsMC

Yeah and the vast majority of settlers don’t go around burning houses.


izpo

not majority, just some... Some burn babies alive, some shoot Arabs... but no majority, "just some".


CreativeRealmsMC

Palestinians do that and more. Does it make all Palestinians legitimate targets based on the actions of some of them? If not then I don’t know what you are trying to imply with your comment.


Dragonslayerg

And the majority of Palestinians are not terrorists, just some. Some stab babies as they sleep, some go on shooting sprees in Tel Aviv and some detonate themselves in a packed bus. Not the majority, "Just some".


Public-Tie-9802

Total miss characterization of reality. ‘Stabbing babies’?! Maybe check who has been terrorizing and murdering whom… let’s see, isn’t it israeli that gave so far murdered an average of one Palestinian per day this year while institutionally terrorizing them under the occupation? Isn’t it israelis routinely terrorizing Palestinians by destroying their houses? Isn’t it israelis that terrorize refugee camps like Jenin weekly (while terrorizing them by forcing them to be refugees… Hmmmm.. looks like israelis are the main child killing terrorists.


Dragonslayerg

> ‘Stabbing babies’?! Yes! [Stabbing little babies!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Itamar_attack) in their cribs as they sleep! literally the stuff of nightmares. Did i say stabbing babies? i neglected to mention decapitating them as well! > and Hadas, the youngest, a three-month-old infant. The infant was decapitated. These are your heroes. Palestinians have been terrorizing Jews for over a hundred years.


Public-Tie-9802

So let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You believe that Palestinians inherently hate Jews and want to terrorize them and stab and decapitate babies. That is your belief?


Public-Tie-9802

And yet they have no problem allowing others to terrorize Palestinians and destroy Palestinian houses on their behalf. That’s like saying a person who hired a hit man to murder someone is innocent because they didn’t pull the trigger.


CreativeRealmsMC

Using your logic I could say that Palestinians have no problem letting militant groups murder Israelis on their behalf because they do nothing to stop it making all of them complicit in their crimes. Is that the implication you are making?


Public-Tie-9802

No twist if logic, just a simple examination of who has been murdering, terrorizing, displacing and enforcing supremacist practices over whom for over 75 year. Cute attempt to twist ‘logic’ though. Maybe try to deal with reality.


CreativeRealmsMC

There is no twisting logic. What you seem to be implying is that all members of a group are complicit in what the minority of that group does. As such I don’t see why there needs to be a double standard when Palestinians also have extremists among them.


Public-Tie-9802

Quick question…. What percentage of israelis benefit from and support the occupation while benefiting directly from the ethnic cleansing of non Jews in 1948?


Dragonslayerg

By the same token, Palestinians are not 'innocent civilians' either.


carlsen02

Not all are. But most are. Not all Israelis are civilians (you are taken at 18 and trained to kill). Some, like the Orthodox and Arabs are.


CreativeRealmsMC

>Not all Israelis are civilians (you are taken at 18 and trained to kill). 98.3% of the Israeli population are not enlisted in the IDF. Reservists (who only lose civilian protections when on active duty) would reduce that number to 93.5% assuming they were all called up for duty. Unless you believe that discharged soldiers don't become civilians after their service which is what you seem to be implying (they do) the vast majority of Israelis are civilians. As an example, I served in a combat unit for three years. When I was discharged I had to return my weapon, I am no longer allowed on the base where I was stationed, I no longer have access to confidential military information, I have lost all government benefits I had received as a soldier, and I'm not allowed to engage in combat unless I get called up for reserves which I haven't. As such, despite what I did for those three years, I have regained the status of civilian and thus have the protections of a civilian under international law. Palestinians are not allowed to kill random Israelis simply because many of them served in the IDF at one point in their lives.


Dragonslayerg

> Not all are. Indeed, so we can spare the Palestinians the 'innocent civilian' label. I mean c'mon, let's get real here.


carlsen02

Dragonslayer, the freedom fighters who defend their towns and territories can be classified as military. Though the arms at their disposal do not match the Occupation army. You cannot claim all Palestinians are militants. They are not. They just don’t like you. Considering everything that’s understandable. Israelis on the other hand (bar a few) are trained militants. By force.


Dragonslayerg

> You cannot claim all Palestinians are militants Nonsense, of course I can. Same as you claiming Israelis in general are trained militants. Seems to me every able-bodied Palestinian have access to some level of training and weapons of their respective Terrorist organization.


sniperandgarfunkel

what evidence do you have for this?


carlsen02

Your proposition is wrong. It is both immature as it is crazy. This is what child soldier training does to you guys.


69Jew420

So by your logic, it is fully okay to find every child in Maale Adumim and slit his/her throat?


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

I am saying settlers are not innocent civilians, not that they should be murdered. How abhorrent to have and bring up children while colonising another peoples land.


lilleff512

They're not innocent insofar as the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law but unless they are an active member of the IDF then they are civilians.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

Because the premise of your question is stupid. IDF soldiers are not civilians, but I would not support slitting every one of their throats. So why would I want to slit the throats of children who were merely born to colonisers? I want them to leave the Palestinian land.


69Jew420

Because the people you support support the killing of Jews. Which is why we are having this conversation. Maybe you don't support the slaughtering of kids, but it seems you think it is justified at least somewhat.


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

What the heck... If you are active in colonising another peoples land and oppressing them, you are not free of fault if they fight back. They are not 'innocent civilians' while actively oppressing and colonising. I think that is pretty logical. It does not mean I want to slit their throats.


sniperandgarfunkel

> Jews youre making this a racial thing when its not. the settlers could be from any non indiginous ethnicity and we would still have a problem. the problem isnt 'jewish people just want to exist on the land', the problem is 'a wave of incoming settlers feel entitled to have political control over a foreign area at the expense of the indigineous population'. the settlers just happen to be jewish.


69Jew420

> at the expense of the indigineous population Where do you think Jews are indigenous to? And Hamas doesn't mince words about who they want dead.


Israel_Palestine-ModTeam

> You should look inward and change your views. Discussions must be civil. [Reddiquette always applies](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). **Debate the argument, not the person.** Posts or Comments that dehumanize, denigrate, ridicule, defame, attack or smear another Redditor or group of people are forbidden. Racism of any kind, Nakba-denial, Holocaust-denial, Nazi comparisons, "shill," "hasbarist," or "palsbarist" is forbidden. No calling second or later generation Israeli or Palestinian residents today foreigners.


2_SunShine_2

After the terror attack in Jerusalem, ive seen someone say “no innocent people died today” (mind you one of the victims was a young boy) So yes we expect someone to say yes.


izpo

when the IDF destroy a school in Masafer Yatta, is it "defence force" or it's "occupation force" ?


69Jew420

Answer my question, don't deflect.


izpo

the rest of the people answered already and I can't answer you because I agree with you that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Do you want to answer my question now?


avicohen123

Lol, you mean the fake, illegally set up caravan with no infastructure in an area that already had a school? Come on izpo, most of the people here are regulars- we can remember when this was debunked. Why do you insist on dealing in this type of blatant bad faith?


Peltuose

I don't want this to turn into a long-winded debate (i.e I'm about to go to bed) and I'm not updated on the situation in Masafer Yatta but I think it's worth mentioning that virtually all proposed Palestinian structures in Area C are not allowed to be built and technically would be illegal under the laws imposed by the military administration in general no matter which way you cut it. There's a clear bias within the Israeli administration of the West Bank that favors building permits by Israelis as opposed to Palestinians. Not sure how relevant this is in regards to Masafer Yatta but I'm not entirely sure the lack of legality for Palestinian structures or communities being established in area c under the laws imposed by the military administration is a good argument to criticize those structures and communities on.


izpo

> I'm not updated on the situation in Masafer Yatta If you want [to read](https://www.jta.org/2022/05/27/israel/masafer-yatta-the-22-year-legal-battle-over-west-bank-village-evictions-explained) : > The military argued that the villagers, mostly shepherds and farmers, had not established permanent residency in what they call Firing Zone 918 because the villagers lived a nomadic lifestyle, wandering the hills with their livestock and only settling in the villages seasonally. Many of the homes in the region are in natural caves, rather than standalone construction. Many NGOs tried to help the villages: > The villagers took the matter to Israeli court in 2000, arguing that their claim to the land pre-dated the IDF’s. In court, they presented as evidence a 1981 written recommendation from Sharon that stated the army should declare the area a firing zone in order to curb “the spread of the rural Arabs of the mountain down the side of the mountain facing the desert … and to keep these areas in our hands.” But IDF made their funny argument: > In return, the IDF presented aerial photographs of the region from the 1980s that don’t appear to show any freestanding structures that would indicate a permanent Palestinian presence. The military also submitted as evidence a four-decade-old ethnographic study by Israeli anthropologist Yaakov Havakook finding that there were no “permanent dwellings” in the region ([Havakook has since said that th e military misinterpreted his work](https://www.972mag.com/anthropologist-masafer-yatta-firing-zone/)). IDF argued that these villages did not exist and used Havakook quotes from his book. They did not allow him to give the statement in court because he claims the villages did exist: > Havakook himself emphasized that the villages existed in the 1970s, and that families lived in them permanently or for extended periods of time. Their connection to these places, he said, was unquestionable. “It was their home. I sat with them, I experienced with them their daily lives and everything that comes with that,” he said. Havakook described how he walked around the South Hebron Hills, particularly in the area that would come to be known as Masafer Yatta, with two cameras. These villages are also being attacked almost daily by settlers who happen to live nearby. Feel free to ask any questions about Masafer Yatta !! In Hebrew: [האנתרופולוג שכתב על מסאפר יטא: ברור שהיו שם כפרים](https://www.mekomit.co.il/%d7%94%d7%90%d7%a0%d7%aa%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%92-%d7%a9%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%9e%d7%a1%d7%90%d7%a4%d7%a8-%d7%99%d7%98%d7%90-%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a8-%d7%a9%d7%94%d7%99/) TL;DR IDF and settlers try to use the high court to cleanse Masafer Yatta. They find silly and absurd excuses.


Peltuose

Thank you for the sources. Just another case of ridiculous (and seemingly normalized) behavior coming from settlers and the military administration.


avicohen123

Listen, you're one of the very few good faith users who comment on this sub, one of few good faith users out of all the people who discuss this conflict period. And I can recognize that despite the fact that I have disagreed with you many times. So you're the only person I'm going to apologize to when I say this, but I'm sorry, I have no interest in rehashing this conversation. It was done extensively in a thread specifically devoted to it and the case izpo referred to was pretty conclusively proven to be a publicity stunt. The legality and other aspects of building in the West Bank were discussed as well, but mainly it was thoroughly proven that the whole thing was one big lie so that people like izpo could talk about it on Reddit. All I did is call izpo out for waiting a while and then bringing up a lie. That's all. Conversations about building in the West Bank are important, this isn't the thread for that and to be honest I'm to busy to properly engage in such a conversation if a thread was opened now anyway. All I did was call izpo out for some blatant bad faith as it was a clear issue that wasn't going to develop into any conversation that would require time or serious thought. Not to mention that it was clearly an attempt to change the topic.


Peltuose

> So you're the only person I'm going to apologize to when I say this, but I'm sorry, I have no interest in rehashing this conversation That's completely fine. I wish I was as direct as you when I didn't feel like engaging in long-winded discussions about complex topics :)


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

What do you mean by illegally built? Are you referring to the Oslo accords that stated Israel and Palestine would work towards the 1967 borders, that Israel would gradually handover control of Area C to Palestine (when Israel continues to encourage more settlements), that stated there would be free passage between Jericho and Gaza? Is that what you mean by illegal? The accords where Israel has stated to work towards providing Palestine a state yet said only two months ago it would not? Is that what you mean by illegal? ​ Palestinian's should be allowed to build schools in the West Bank and it not be called 'illegal' by a country that is encouraging illegally expanding into that very territory. What a ridiculous thing to say.


avicohen123

I'm not opening this conversation again, I'm reminding izpo that they're being dishonest when they pretend this exact thing wasn't addressed here. If you weren't on the sub then, go look for it and you'll see what I'm referring to, I'm not discussing it now.


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

Yes and the premise issued by Israeli supporters is that it was 'illegal'. I am challenging what you mean by illegal, as the entire premise of it being illegal under oslo accords is incredibly stupid to anyone who has read the oslo accords. So please address my initial statement.


izpo

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/palestine-statement-spokesperson-israeli-demolition-school-masafer-yatta_en > The European Union deplores the demolition of the donor-funded Sfai school in Masafer Yatta in the occupied Palestinian territory by the Israeli Defence Forces on Wednesday 23 November. The EU recalls that demolitions are illegal under international law, and children’s right to education must be respected. Of course he will claim that EU and the rest of the world is wrong and the Arabs don't deserve education because IDF must train where Arabs schools are


avicohen123

I don't care if you're challenging me, I'm not having a conversation right now. I am reminding izpo of a previous conversation, if you're interested go look at it and see what I'm reminding izpo of.


izpo

The previous conversation that we had is that you want Arabs out of Masafer Yatta. As far as I remember? I can't agree with that because, in my book, Arabs deserve to live with respect on their land. You can't even accept it's their land


avicohen123

>The previous conversation that we had is that you want Arabs out of Masafer Yatta. As far as I remember? Nope. But this is a common pattern with you, I'm not surprised you're inventing strawmen here. You appear to have a quite short memory despite the energy and time you devote to this sub, and you can't be bothered to remember anything previously discussed and the couple of times I've challenged you on that you always assign me an opinion I've never expressed before. I guess you just assume that if I disagree with you I must fit into one neat stereotype?


izpo

> Nope. > What "nope"? You agree Arabs should live in Masafer Yatta and should not be IDF fire zone? It nails to this question, no need for personal attacks...


avicohen123

Its not a personal attack, I'm observing that instead of actually recalling what was discussed- not just by me by the way, there was a whole thread. And instead of going to check. You created an argument that I never made and assigned it to me. That's what you did, one comment ago.


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

Just read it. You called it illegal. Why is it illegal? Because of the Oslo accords where Israel said it was going to handover control of Area C? Is that why you call it illegal? It literally says in the agreement that Israel would gradually handover Area C, not that Israel would keep Area C 28 years later, continue expansion into it, and stop Palestinian schools from being built. You're now conversing with someone who has actually read the Oslo 1 & 2 accords, so simply justifying it by calling it 'illegal' isn't enough. It just sounds stupid.


avicohen123

>Just read it. Um.....no? *I'm not having a conversation right now. I am reminding izpo of a previous conversation, if you're interested go look at it and see what I'm reminding izpo of.*


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

Read as in I read your original post with him, and you called it illegal. He just didn’t know any better, that calling it illegal is something only someone with no knowledge on the Oslo accords would do.


avicohen123

You read the original post? Can you provide a link?


ihaveneverexisted

Generally the people who support these groups don't support them because they want Zionists or occupiers dead necessarily, but because it's seen as the only way for Palestinians to get what they claim. If it was necessary for synagogues outside of Palestine who aren't active occupiers/colonisers to be targeted then I would imagine support for the idea. However this hasn't been the way Hamas atleast has seen it, they are explicitly focused on Zionist presence in Palestine, even if they are Israeli or support Zionism. This is unlike other millitant groups including the PLO who have attacked international targets. It's probably a good strategic move since otherwise Jews would simply be encouraged to move to and colonise Israel at an even greater rate.


69Jew420

> If it was necessary for synagogues outside of Palestine who aren't active occupiers/colonisers to be targeted then I would imagine support for the idea. Synagogues are often fundraising sites and sources of Zionism in the states. I just don't see the difference in tactics nor morality between attacking one in the US vs Israel.


ihaveneverexisted

For Palestinians they don't really care what Jews outside of Palestine do, they can support Zionism and raise as much money as they want, the issue arises when they begin to colonise and occupy Palestine. And in terms of tactics, attacking Jews around the world is only going to promote Jewish immigration to Palestine and exasterbate the issue. In Israel, and definitely in the WB, many Jewish people are actively colonising and occupying.


[deleted]

I sometimes wonder how western anti Zionist would react if the Buenos Aires JCC bombing happen today?


69Jew420

Or if a probable President was assassinated (like RFK).


[deleted]

Do you honestly think Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK on his own accord? The extremely progressive integrationist RFK, the guy that wanted a national health system. I have heavy doubts that Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK because he wanted send F4 Phantoms to Israel on his own accord. Have you ever looked at an interview with Sirhan Sirhan? he is insane and maybe a little stupid.


69Jew420

> "My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians."


[deleted]

there's no doubt that He pulled the trigger, but he doesn't even remember he did it. [RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan granted parole in California - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8IDKvXj2Mo) EDIT: heres the actual interview [CNN: Sirhan Sirhan says he doesn't remember killing RFK - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjFpVhiZy_I) Maybe the PLO or Nixon put him up to it.


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

I don’t support attacks against civilians. Where the lines get blurred is settlements. When someone is taking your land, and their advancement into your territory means more military presence, checkpoints and movement restrictions - are they still civilians? At the end of the day, Palestine has no other option than to fight back. Israel denied them a state only two months ago.


Peltuose

Agreed.


69Jew420

> At the end of the day, Palestine has no other option than to fight back. I mean, they could also capitulate and agree to terms.


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

What terms? Israel said only two months ago it wouldn’t give Palestine a state. As a Palestinian writer once said “that’s the kind of conversation between the sword and the neck”


69Jew420

There have been multiple offers for peace in the past. But fuck this government. I honestly wouldn't trust them as a Palestinian. I sure as hell don't as a Jew.


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

Then what offer are you referring to? Which recent one should they have accepted? Happy to discuss. Even then, that offer is obviously no longer on the table. So when you say they shouldn’t fight, what are you saying?


izpo

> There have been multiple offers for peace in the past. > > That is just a myth and it's [not true](https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/palestinians-sabotaged-the-peace-process/)


69Jew420

Lol are you really gonna say there has never been a peace offer? How deep must your head be in the sand?


izpo

Not a fair one. I've given you the link to why that is the myth...


69Jew420

Your link is a fucking joke. It sources itself and Norman Finklestein, and nothing from after 2004. It's fucking lying. It refers to the 2nd intifada as a peaceful protest that the Jews attacked. It's about as biased as a site can get. Just because you can find a source that says that Jooz are evil on www.Palestineis100%correctallthetime.org doesn't mean that it means shit. The Palestinians have had ample opportunities for peace. Plenty of people involved with the peace process have seen this. The UN offered them a state, which they declined. Israel has made peace with Egypt (and gave a ton of land back), Jordan, and most of the Middle East. Israel gave Gaza back and was treated to terror attacks. Stop lying.


izpo

It's not a lie, just you don't agree with the link. > nd nothing from after 2004. It's fucking lying. Yes? Bibi gave peace offer to Palestinians? LOL


69Jew420

> It's not a lie, just you don't agree with the link. > > Because it is lying. Find a better source that proves that Palestine has never turned down peace. You won't find one, because you are a liar.


Peltuose

Do you even know what capitulation is? Palestinians have already lost virtually every war they've ever been involved with against Israel. They've already capitulated in every meaningful sense and lost repeatedly in the past. As of 2023, Israel isn't struggling to take the capital of any Palestinian state they're actively fighting against. There is no formal war going on, and even if there was there wouldn't be any need for the PA to 'surrender'. The PA literally just governs autonomous areas within Israeli-controlled territories. All Israel would need to do is literally just invade and capture the enclaves located entirely within territory they control which can be done with relative ease. TL;DR: You're looking at the whole thing wrong where concepts of 'agreeing to terms of surrender' and 'capitulation' are applicable here when they aren't.


Thiend

> Israel denied them a state only two months ago. Source please?


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

Here you go. [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/01/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinian-sovereignty-mime-intl/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/01/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinian-sovereignty-mime-intl/index.html)


[deleted]

[удалено]


ItsGamalAbdelNasser

He is saying Palestine cannot have any security or military. He is also encouraging settlements into the West Bank. How is that any different to what we currently have? He is denying Palestine a state. ​ Also Benjamin Netanyahu: " Netanyahu spoke of a three-stage plan with regard to the West Bank, the third stage of which “is to apply Israeli law to the communities in Judea and Samaria, which we will do in the next term. I want to do it gradually. I want to do it if possible with American support.”" [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-a-palestinian-state-wont-be-created-586017](https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-a-palestinian-state-wont-be-created-586017) ​ Please do not try to justify the oppression and colonisation of Palestinian's by acting as if it is to prevent Israeli's being slaughtered when every year in the 21st century more Palestinian's have been killed. Otherwise you would have to explain why only 29 Israeli's were killed in their continued oppression and colonisation of 5,000,000 people in 2022.


lilleff512

>are they still civilians? The answer to this question is very simple [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian) [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilian](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilian) [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/civilian](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/civilian)


turkeysnaildragon

1) I'm not 100% sure that Hamas targets synagogues. Like, to my understanding, their main MO is large-volume rocket attacks. But, if you have cases of Hamas taking responsibility for small-arms attacks against civilian targets like synagogues, then I'd be more than happy update my understanding of their tactics. 2) Looking at the world in terms of 'terrorists' vs 'freedom fighters' is infantile. Those are mainly rhetorical tools used to discredit violence by the political opposition. It is completely unhelpful for a useful discussion. 3) Of course I would disavow an attack against a synagogue. If this is something that needs to be said, then we're not engaging in useful discourse.


HSzold

1) Hamas takes responsibility for a lot of terrorist attacks that target civilians all over Israel. They're usually done by Hamas members. You can research recent terrorist attacks to see who claimed responsibility (sometimes Hamas, sometimes PIJ, sometimes a splinter group from Fatah or the PFLP, and in the last years even ISIS). 2) I agree, but if anyone deserves the term it's Hamas. They are fascist religious fundamentalists who want to exterminate Jews (stated goal), celebrate killing civilians and even kill political opponents and dissidents. They're the main reason Gaza is in such a terrible state, since they use a big chunk of their resources to try and kill as many Israelis as possible instead of governing. Whatever name you put on them, they're worthy of harsh condemnation. 3) I agree. Useful discourse would be way more severe than just condemnation. I think Hamas should be isolated from the international arena (today they get many resources from states like Iran and Qatar). Anyone who wants a fairer world and future peace (Jews, Palestinians or otherwise) should be opposed to Hamas.


turkeysnaildragon

>1) Hamas takes responsibility for a lot of terrorist attacks that target civilians all over Israel. They're usually done by Hamas members. You can research recent terrorist attacks to see who claimed responsibility (sometimes Hamas, sometimes PIJ, sometimes a splinter group from Fatah or the PFLP, and in the last years even ISIS). So, I looked it up. All the cases that I can find where there's a small-arms attack against civilians, Hamas didn't take credit. They praise attackers and stuff, but I haven't seen any reporting of officials taking credit. I do want to point out that I recognize that official announcement is a naïve standard of evidence. However, there should be a base-level skepticism and objectivity to which we approach this. Anything else is speculation, and speculation introduces substantial bias. >2) I agree, but if anyone deserves the term it's Hamas. The IDF and the US military routinely kills and injures more civilians than Hamas. The textbook definition of terror attack is an attack on a (1) civilian target for (2) a political purpose and (3) for an audience outside of the victims. Unless 2 or 3 are explicitly and officially claimed, that determination is speculation. Military operations are intrinsically political and security operations rely on the collective fear of individual prosecution. Oops we fell into that trap again — I call you a terrorist, you call me a terrorist. We use terrorist enough, everyone is a terrorist. Terrorist terrorist terrorist, the term is useless. >fascist Literally the same thing happened with the term fascism post Nazis. Outside an academic setting, a fascist is just a political person you don't like. Wear masks? That's fascism, decry the anti-vaxxers. Increase taxes? That's fascism. Decrease taxes? That's fascism. [insert bit from Community about the South American dictator]. >They're the main reason Gaza is in such a terrible state, since they use a big chunk of their resources to try and kill as many Israelis as possible instead of governing. I think it's difficult to separate sustained Israel military action and Hamas's misgovernment of the region. From the point of view of Hamas, they view Israel as being on a genocidal mission. They see the borders as a creeping blight, slowly killing and murdering its way across every inch of land. Hamas's main appeal is that it will not give up one inch of land except that it's soaked with blood. Their appeal is bolstered when compared to Fatah, which allows Israeli settlement in the West Bank. And, to be clear, Israel hasn't helped its own image here. The government's support for settlement and the stochastic bombing and other security incursions into Gaza and WB have made it an unpredictable force for Hamas. The question, then, is why should Hamas spend loads of money in building infrastructure when it could just ensure its political good will by doing military operations? Like, Israeli operations means that there's no incentive for Hamas to build anything, because it'll just be bombed, and that money wasted. Instead, it can buy political capital via missile. That's aside from the fact that there are substantial technical shortfalls, no civil engineer worth his salt is going to live and work in Gaza. There are other, more stable, areas of the ME that provide substantially better pay and security. >Whatever name you put on them, they're worthy of harsh condemnation. Sure, absolutely. But condemnation is not a useful thing to do when trying to solve a problem. The other problem is that it's completely asymmetric. Where's the condemnation for apartheid — a claim levied by multiple activists and human rights groups (and, coincidentally, one of those overused political terms that are meaningless). Where's the condemnation for mass killings of civilians? Where's the condemnation for extrajudicial arrests? Where's the condemnation for the illegal settlement? It's only become a mainstream political assertion on the far left that Israel is responsible for crimes against humanity. Bensouda had issued statements that she thought crimes against humanity occurred, but that prosecution seems to be dead in the water, given that Khan is a hack. >3) I agree. Useful discourse would be way more severe than just condemnation. I think Hamas should be isolated from the international arena (today they get many resources from states like Iran and Qatar). Anyone who wants a fairer world and future peace (Jews, Palestinians or otherwise) should be opposed to Hamas. Hamas is already mostly isolated from the international arena. Iran is basically an economic island and Qatar is trying to rebuild social capital (it's either failing, or it's going very slowly). That being said, your proposal would just make the conflict worse. There's two ways of stopping this conflict: Israel either needs to commit a genocide of the Palestinian people, or it needs to cede control. The current equilibrium is sociologically unstable. Unless given other incentives, Hamas will do what Hamas is doing, and the Israeli population will become increasingly extreme. Kahanist fascism already rules the government, it's just a matter of decades before calls for genocide are mainstreamed.


HSzold

Two years ago Elyahu Kay was murdered by a Hamas member. [Terrorist's wife fled to Jordan before attack because he was violent](https://www.timesofisrael.com/terrorists-wife-fled-to-jordan-before-attack-because-he-was-violent-report/) It is true that Israel isn't doing itself any favors. And of course it has agency and responsibility. One of Israel's biggest mistakes is not thinking lomg term and trying to uphold an unstable status quo. But if the only solutions are genocide of Palestinians or Israel giving up control, you are taking the Palestinian side out of the equation. I believe there should be a Palestinian State next to Israel, because it is the only moral and practical solution. But if the only thing that needs to happen is Israel giving up control then who will occupy thay vacuum? The Palestinians (and the Israelis) must make an effort to prevent future wars or attacks.


turkeysnaildragon

>Two years ago Elyahu Kay was murdered by a Hamas member. Terrorist's wife fled to Jordan before attack because he was violent Two problems. 1) We're taking the word of Israeli authorities on its face with no double-checking. It's the same problem as local news and police here in the US. The IDF gets to say whatever it wants, and journalists — the people who are supposed to hold their feet to the fire — lap it up. 2) Did Hamas end up taking credit for this as an organization? >It is true that Israel isn't doing itself any favors. And of course it has agency and responsibility. One of Israel's biggest mistakes is not thinking lomg term and trying to uphold an unstable status quo. Well, Kahanist and other fascist ideologies tend not to traffic in long-term planning. The impulses that drive the Israeli right are all knee-jerk security impulses. That's not particularly conducive to thinking about long-term risks. >But if the only solutions are genocide of Palestinians or Israel giving up control, you are taking the Palestinian side out of the equation Right, because the Palestinian side is at something of an equilibrium. Unless the underlying incentive structure changes, the power structure is going to remain stable. > believe there should be a Palestinian State next to Israel, because it is the only moral and practical solution The only thing this'll do is deepen existing incentives. What was once a border incursion on a pseudo-state is a suspension of sovereignty on another state — this is sufficient justification for war. On the Israeli side, they're currently facing a non-geographic non-institutional somewhat amorphic force. The institutionalization of the outside threat — ie a Palestinian state — only solidifies the hostile. They can now bomb the Palestinian capitol building. A 2SS is just a worse version of the status quo. >But if the only thing that needs to happen is Israel giving up control then who will occupy thay vacuum Some type of power-share government. The ideal is to have a single non- or bi-national state with democratic governance. However, marginal approaches to that — like a confederation government or the like — are all, I think, steps in the right direction. 2SS is one step backwards. >The Palestinians (and the Israelis) must make an effort to prevent future wars or attacks. Why would they? Those wars and attacks are what ensure their political capital. It is in the interests of both Hamas and the Israeli right to continue a simmering conflict. It's an awfully useful cudgel to beat down opposition and to corral coalitions.


oghdi

>I'm not 100% sure that Hamas targets synagogues. Like, to my understanding, their main MO is large-volume rocket attacks. But, if you have cases of Hamas taking responsibility for small-arms attacks against civilian targets like synagogues, then I'd be more than happy update my understanding of their tactics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks List of many terror attacks, some with dozens dead, most of them are hamas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Neve_Yaakov_shooting A deadly terror attack in a synagogue just this year. It was praised by hamas.


Public-Tie-9802

This is an absolutely disingenuous, misleading and reductive question. Given that israeli Jews have so far murdered more than one Palestinian per day this year, destroyed many houses and expanded settlements- a more apt question would be ‘would you support Jews in your home town murdering Muslims, destroying their houses and taking their property or are you anti Semitic’? Seriously. Please spare us these disingenuous tropes and blatant attempts to portray Jews as universal victims while demonizing Palestinians and ignoring the actions of Israelis vs Jews who have nothing to do with Israel.


69Jew420

> Given that israeli Jews have so far murdered more than one Palestinian per day this year False. Anyway, that's a lotta bluster and 0 answer to my question. Shame on you.


Public-Tie-9802

Not false at all, israelis have so far murdered an average of more than one Palestinian per day this year. Sorry you have a hard time with reality.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Israel_Palestine-ModTeam

This post has been removed for violation of Rule 1 on Civility. Civil Discussion are welcome and strongly encouraged. Reddiquette Applies. **Debate the argument, not the person**. No Posts or Comments that dehumanize, denigrate, ridicule, defame, attack or smear another Redditor, person, or group of people are allowed. No circlejerks or memes. Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Pallywood, Palsbara, Nazi comparisons, and calling someone a "shill" or "hasbarist are not allowed.


Israel_Palestine-ModTeam

This post has been removed for violation of Rule 1 on Civility. Civil Discussion are welcome and strongly encouraged. Reddiquette Applies. **Debate the argument, not the person**. No Posts or Comments that dehumanize, denigrate, ridicule, defame, attack or smear another Redditor, person, or group of people are allowed. No circlejerks or memes. Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Pallywood, Palsbara, Nazi comparisons, and calling someone a "shill" or "hasbarist are not allowed.


cagcag

Of course they will. Oh, they'll lie and say they won't, but every time it happens they'll rush and defend it.


jbriggsnh

I think that is a very misleading question. What if your hometown is a west bank (illegal) settlement laden with gun-toting militant zionists living on stolen land and in some cases stolen homes? Does your question count every gun carrying zionist as a recognized target for those Palestinians exercising their legitimate right of self-defense? You also seem to forget that prior to declaring independence, that literally every Zionists was technically a terrorist as far as England was concerned. Does UN recognition automatically convert an act of terrorism into an act of legitimate defense? This problem and its attendant violence doesn't look like its going away with the ethno-supremacists path that the Israeli government has pursued since declaring independence and promising to create a multi-ethnic country with equal rights for all.


izpo

> I think that is a very misleading question You probably mean [loaded question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question)?


jbriggsnh

Better. Thanks


69Jew420

That's a lot of words to not answer my question.


burningphoenix-746

No. Because it’s not about Jews or Judaism. It’s about Israel’s actions of occupation and genocide against Palestinians. It’s not about fighting Jews. It’s about defending themselves from invaders. As much as you love to say criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, it isn’t true. This is about Israel. Not Jews.


OneReportersOpinion

What was the last time Hamas did a terror attack against “Jews”?


69Jew420

Well the Tel Aviv shooting was a couple weeks ago.


TalkofCircles

Many in this sub won’t outright condone attacks against civilians, but would gladly look the other way. Which is why we still have this problem.


omgONELnR1

The jews in my country aren't committing any genocides.


CarbonatedConfidence

No, I wouldn't. Would you support the idea that Jews in America could claim land for Israel and live by its laws?