Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

Ah, yes, the old equation of criticizing the government = criticizing a specific group.

Because it usually is a PC way to criticize Jews.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. Hammas. Funded by Iran to destabilise Israel. Popular in Palestine because they buy hospitals and stuff. Let's just ignore that the main benefactor of Palestine is Israel.

Iran had Hezbollah. Hamas initially began as a grassroots movement. Over time, Israel played a role in their rise over that ole enemy of my enemy is a friend thing. Ya know, similar to how the US tried to play the Muslim Brotherhood game against Iran and that backfired as well. Once Hamas evolved and became more prominent, Iran found them to be a viable asset and took over providing support to Hamas.

Dividing your enemy is a useful tactic. Supporting Hamas did do that.

And Iran would have funded whoever would shoot at Israel. They don't care who it is.

2. The Israeli government, who are just trying to keep everyone safe. Yes, even the Palestinians. If Hammas (and Islamic Jihad) keeps attacking Israel needs to respond in an appropriate way. I think rooting out Hammas at the core and obliterating it, I think, is appropriate. It's not the fault of Israel that Hammas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields

Israel's actions, such as occupying territories, controlling borders, and water resources, as well as historical involvement with groups like Hamas, have been points of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A more nuanced understanding of the situation acknowledges these complexities beyond a simple assertion that the Israeli government is solely focused on ensuring safety. What government doesn't make that claim?

The border fence they built many years ago ended any issue of their own hotheads grabbing territory.

As for those water resources--Hamas diverted pipe to rockets. Blame them. The available per-capita water is reasonably close--but a lot of Palestinian water leaks away (old pipes), they are less efficient about water use in farming and they have water they can't access because the pipe was misused.

Finally, your comments have no relevance to the "wheel of blame" you entered into the discussion, which seemed to suggest Jews as a whole are being blamed.

Because most of it is cloaked antisemitism. Everyone expects Israel to resolve the problem even though they only "created" it by refusing to lie over and die.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What?! Far-right Israeli leadership policies have rarely ever considered the safety of the Palestinian people.

If this were true they wouldn't be calling ahead on bombing strikes to try to get civilians out of the way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keep in mind that the international press uncritically publish the utter drivel that the Palestinian authorities keep feeding them. The suffering and death toll by the Palestinians is likely a fraction of what is reported. As far as I can tell the IDF is doing a stellar job.

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case both sides are giving similar numbers so I think Hamas is telling approximately the truth. Now, the breakdown between combatants and civilians is quite another matter--Hamas numbers on that are garbage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The depth of depravity in the 7/10 Hammas attack makes it impossible for Israel to accept Hammas having any more influence in Gaza. And since Hammas has wide popular support its necessary to go in with the big guns.

It's important to use targeted munitions instead of indiscriminate ones, sir. Why? The former can help prevent your efforts to remove Hamas from being a tool of radicalization to produce more of Hamas. Gaza is not only the place with Arabs bruh! If they genuinely aiming to eliminate an enemy, their approach is remarkably unwise. We are no longer in colonial times when such behavior was deemed acceptable. In today's nuclear age, actions like these can lead to catastrophic consequences, risking the loss of everything, including your beloved continent. But you go on and preach brotha.

And your evidence that they aren't using targeted stuff is???

This is one of the distortions spread to the world press. Yes, they are sometimes dive bombing more isolated targets. In an environment without an appreciable AA threat a dive bomb is close to as accurate as a guided bomb. We are left with the basic fact that Israel is managing to average less than one dead per bomb despite dropping on a populated area. That is precision.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 45236

Where is the slot for white males?

I read that as being what the Muslims blame.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the most important budget item in the PA budget? Money paid to the families of terrorists. That means they are directly funding terrorism and have been doing so all along.

Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The changed hats in response to western pressure but it's still government money. It's approximately 10% of the PA budget and about 3% of GDP. And note that that does not include what Hamas is spending on such payments.

The families of terrorists, whether real or merely alleged, are not the perpetrators, so Israel's policy of victimizing innocent family members to get revenge on the actual perpetrators is racist, despicable, and inhumane. I have no problem with the PA's support for their families. There is no way that the PA can be considered "directly funding terrorism" with this policy.

1) This does not in any way address the fact that it's paying for terrorism.

You said "directly funding terrorism", but the welfare program is for families undergoing hardship because family members have been incarcerated far a variety of crimes, some alleged to be terrorist acts. These are not the people who perpetrated the crimes that the prisoners are accused of, and the Israeli justice system convicts almost every accusation against a Palestinian that is brought before it. Your characterization simply looks at the way Israel frame those payments (e.g. as "pay for slay"), ignoring the fact that the families of alleged terrorists are also targeted, sometimes even having their homes demolished. If Israel chooses to oppress the family members of terrorists, it seems fair that the PA have a program to compensate them.

See: Palestinian Prisoner Payments

Israel is targeting the houses in response to the pay for slay.

And it's only the ones that are in jail for terror related crimes, not those who are in jail for ordinary crime. And the payment is related to how long the sentence, not merely that they aren't home to be taking care of their family. It is very obviously set up to reward terrorism. Rewarding terrorism is funding terrorism.

And while I do not know he conviction rate I would expect it to be high. Remember, they are being hunted by a state-level intelligence agency, not Barney Fife. Besides, a lot are apprehended in the act.

2) You're bringing in a distraction of the Israeli demolition of houses--it's not meant as revenge, but meant to make it economically less advantageous. The PA offers big rewards to the family of a martyr, Israel does what it can to reduce this so there's less incentive to become a martyr.

If it isn't meant as revenge, then why are the homes of Israeli families never demolished when one of their family members commits a serious crime? Your special pleading slip is showing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Palestinian leadership rejected the plan to divide Palestine. They made their own proposal which would have given full and equal citizenship to all Palestinians born in Palestine before the beginning of the British Mandate, regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnic origins, and grant resident status with a path to full citizenship for immigrants who had arrived in Palestine via legal means.

You are neglecting the fact that the Palestinian "plan" amounted to give everything to the Arabs, nothing to the Jews.

Unlike you, I have researched this topic and have read the proposal.

You are utterly mistaken.

The problem is you don't consider the implications. In English at least things are generally worded to sound reasonable. The evil bits are hidden behind as many layers as possible. In this case, they are picking the yardstick so as to give everything to the Palestinians.

Anyway, if you believe the UN created the State of Israel via resolution 181 then you must also believe Israelis invaded their neighbor's territory in April of 1948 with the intention of seizing resources and infrastructure through ethnic cleansing and conquest.

Israel didn't start the war.

Which war, and when did it start? Be specific.

If you are calling the fighting before May 14, 1948 a war, then I agree that Israel didn't start it because Israel didn't exist. But if you are trying to use a cheap rhetorical trick to absolve the Jewish Agency for Palestine of responsibility for the planned ethnic cleansing and seizing of territory by force, i.e. the war of conquest they called the War of Independence, then I disagree. There is no doubt the Zionists started it.

Basically, it came down to the Arabs drawing a line in the sand and saying that the creation of Israel would result in war. Israel crossed that line by declaring it's existence. They knew that crossing that line would bring war but they accepted that it was necessary, they did not seek it.

The history of the conflict doesn't start in May of 1948. The bodies of people killed in the strife, soldiers, civilians, LEOs, and terrorists alike, have been filling the graveyards there since the 1920s.

It goes back much, much farther than that. Massacring Jews was common long before then. 1948 is the abuse victim finally escaping.

Link to the evidence that massacring Jews was common, or admit you can't find any.

Are you really that ignorant of world history?

As it happens two posts below yours I already posted a bit of what you're looking for.

 

[Arctish]

I was not attempting to change my definition. I was attempting to clarify things for you.

Years ago I realized that in certain discussions it was important to be really, really wordy because assuming that other posters could or would ask for clarification was unrealistic. I now realize that I should have gone on for a few paragraphs about the meaning of the term and included several dictionary definitions. I also realize I made a slight error in punctuation. I should have written my initial comment this way:

The term oppression is used to indicate an exercise of unjust and abusive power or authority by one person or group over another; it is not used to indicate mutual hostilities between parties.

The term "oppression" is not used to indicate mutual hostilities, warfare, civil strife, or similar conditions in which two or more parties engage in an exchange of violent acts and aggression with each other. We have other words for mutual bloodletting. It is used when individuals in positions of power (popes, kings, emperors, dictators, etc. ), or groups in positions of power (white supremacists in the Jim Crow era, Japanese troops in Nanking in the 1930s, the Khmer Rouge, etc.), exercised their power over other individuals or groups in unjust and abusive ways.

1) Massacres aren't supposed to be part of warfare.

2) A scene of utter desolation and horror, of Jewish girls with their breasts cut off, of little children with numerous knife wounds and of whole families locked in their homes and burned to death, was described by a Jewish Telegraphic Agency correspondent, who succeeded in reaching this city today.

“It will take days before the world will obtain a true picture of all the atrocities committed by the Arabs during the pogrom on the Jewish quarter,” the correspondent wired.

“The only comparison I can think of is the Palestine riots of 1929. I found Jewish girls with their breasts cut off, greybearded Jews stabbed to death, little Jewish children dead of numerous knife wounds and whole families locked in their homes and burned to death by the rioters.

“Just as in Palestine in 1929, the lists of the dead and injured run into the hundreds with no official estimates available. The hospitals are filled with Jewish victims and the doors of the hospitals are besieged with half-crazed wives and mothers seeking to ascertain whether their loved ones are among the dead or injured, or whether they succeeded in escaping the pogrom bands.

Other than the location and the mention of "wired" this sounds like something that could have been written about 10/7. Except it's 8/8/1934, Algeria.

Algeria.

Not Palestine. Not oppression of Israelis by Palestinians.

It was a massacre, a crime against humanity, and horrific terrorism in Algeria decades before Israel even existed.

Just because the victim managed to turn the tables on their abuser doesn't make it not oppression. Look at the big picture!

You are misreading my posts.

The rapes, kidnapping, and murders carried out by Hamas in Israel in October were acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity. We call them that because they fit the definition of the terms 'terrorism' and 'crimes against humanity'.

IMO they were not instances of oppression because they do not fit the definition of the term 'oppression'. You apparently think they do but you have not yet explained your reasoning. I think at this point it is up to you to be really, really wordy in your response and to explain more fully what you mean.

In the overall picture, yes, they are instances of oppression.

List a few. And limit the list to instances of oppression in Palestine and Israel. We aren't talking about French colonies in Africa, or the Greeks in Thrace, or the Byzantine Empire.

I asked you "What definition of the term 'oppression' do you use, and how do you decide who is oppressing whom?" You haven't given me an answer except to say you were using common definitions.

That is a falsehood. I have told you exactly what definition I'm using. If you're forgetting how our discussion has gone because I'm responding slowly, my apologies -- a lot on my plate.

A quick Google search yields several common definitions including
-prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control
-the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.

Palestinians have been targeting Israeli noncombatants for murder for decades. That is prolonged, cruel, and unjust.

The IDF and settlers have been targeting non-Jewish Palestinian non-combatants for murder and mayhem for decades. That, too, is prolonged, cruel, and unjust, and it comes on top of ethnic cleansing and theft of property.

Proof of their non-combatant status?? The Palestinians claiming they weren't combatants and that they were targeted by Israeli actions doesn't mean much.

It doesn't mean much to you. You have argued that children being guided to a UN shelter by their teachers, or playing on a beach, or playing soccer in a open field, or herding sheep, or picking vegetables, are valid targets. You have argued that a woman who answered the knock at her front door was rightfully shot by the IDF soldiers raiding her house, and that her lying there bleeding to death in front of her children for almost an hour rather than being taken to a hospital was perfectly fine.

I doubt you would have this problem if we were talking about Israeli children or Jewish mothers in their own homes, but as soon as the P-word gets mentioned you lose all ability to distinguish combatants no matter how young.

And note they only list the first names of the "UNWRA workers" killed. If they really were non-combatants why are they going out of their way to hide their identity? Assume anyone they're not fully open about is a combatant and you'll rarely be wrong.

If I assume you are bullshitting when you refuse to provide links to evidence that supports your claims, I will never be wrong.

 

[Arctish]

The Palestinian leadership rejected the plan to divide Palestine. They made their own proposal which would have given full and equal citizenship to all Palestinians born in Palestine before the beginning of the British Mandate, regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnic origins, and grant resident status with a path to full citizenship for immigrants who had arrived in Palestine via legal means.

You are neglecting the fact that the Palestinian "plan" amounted to give everything to the Arabs, nothing to the Jews.

Unlike you, I have researched this topic and have read the proposal.

You are utterly mistaken.

The problem is you don't consider the implications. In English at least things are generally worded to sound reasonable. The evil bits are hidden behind as many layers as possible. In this case, they are picking the yardstick so as to give everything to the Palestinians.

Link to your source. Show us what the Proposal actually said, then point out the passages you think are problematic.

Also, when you say "the Palestinians", you are including Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Christians as well as other Palestinian people, right? You aren't trying to argue that Palestinian Jews didn't exist or that they had no Rights as indigenous people of Palestine, are you?

I ask because it looks like you are trying to argue that Europeans had a Right to dictate what became of Palestinian property and resources, that the people of Palestine were wrong to think they had a say in the matter and that they were greedy for wanting to keep their homes, farms, businesses, and communities for themselves, but you are usually quite supportive of the Rights of Jews especially when it comes to their homeland. So what gives?

Did Palestinians, Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, have a Right to disagree with Europeans about how Palestine would be governed, or did they not?

Anyway, if you believe the UN created the State of Israel via resolution 181 then you must also believe Israelis invaded their neighbor's territory in April of 1948 with the intention of seizing resources and infrastructure through ethnic cleansing and conquest.

Israel didn't start the war.

Which war, and when did it start? Be specific.

If you are calling the fighting before May 14, 1948 a war, then I agree that Israel didn't start it because Israel didn't exist. But if you are trying to use a cheap rhetorical trick to absolve the Jewish Agency for Palestine of responsibility for the planned ethnic cleansing and seizing of territory by force, i.e. the war of conquest they called the War of Independence, then I disagree. There is no doubt the Zionists started it.

Basically, it came down to the Arabs drawing a line in the sand and saying that the creation of Israel would result in war. Israel crossed that line by declaring it's existence. They knew that crossing that line would bring war but they accepted that it was necessary, they did not seek it.

So the Zionists knew that their actions would result in war, accepted the consequences and started the war anyway, but you want to blame the war on the everyone except the Zionists. The Palestinians didn't immediately hand over their property and go be penniless beggars somewhere else, and their neighbors in the region supported their decision to stay put, so that makes the war the fault of the locals, not the armed Europeans arriving with the intention to commit ethnic cleansing and conquest?

The history of the conflict doesn't start in May of 1948. The bodies of people killed in the strife, soldiers, civilians, LEOs, and terrorists alike, have been filling the graveyards there since the 1920s.

It goes back much, much farther than that. Massacring Jews was common long before then. 1948 is the abuse victim finally escaping.

Link to the evidence that massacring Jews was common, or admit you can't find any.

Are you really that ignorant of world history?

As it happens two posts below yours I already posted a bit of what you're looking for.

Either you completely missed the point being made in the posts you quoted or you are trying to drag the conversation onto a different topic.

If this is a case of you simply not understanding what Bomb#20 and I were discussing, then re-read our posts. If it's the latter, then please stop cluttering up our discussion with your handwaving and distractions.

 

[repoman]

Ah, yes, the old equation of criticizing the government = criticizing a specific group.

Because it usually is a PC way to criticize Jews.

not Jews, "Chosenites"

 

[jonatha]

Return the hostages, we'll stop bombing you.

For two whole months...

 

[laughing dog]

What?! Far-right Israeli leadership policies have rarely ever considered the safety of the Palestinian people.

If this were true they wouldn't be calling ahead on bombing strikes to try to get civilians out of the way.

That is more to avoid bad international public relations. The disproportionate death toll of Palestiinian civilians rebuts your argument.

 

[Swammerdami]

All over a colossal 19th century fuck up that started in Nazi Germany with the holocaust killing and displacing Jews

That's very mixed-up history. Be careful of the chronology. VERY careful.

For starters, "19th century" is equal to the "1800s". Don't blame me! I'm a (fanatical) C programmer and we start counting at zero.

On a more substantive note, after centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust, the Jews DID deserve some kind of homeland. IMHO the world was under an obligation to provide them with one, and Israel was the logical place for it.

Making major border changes after a major war is routine. Look what happened to Poland's borders after WWII! Yet we don't see Poland lobbing missiles into Lviv, nor making illegal settlements there. Nor is Germany pursuing genocide against the people of Breslau.

BOTH sides are to blame for the Palestinian conflict. We can denounce the behavior of Netanyahu and his ilk -- who act as if they want to emulate the crimes of Hitler -- without endorsing heinous Palestinian terrorism.

A very BIG share of the blame must fall on the U.S. Making Jerusalem some sort of "open city" could have been a big step towards peace and amity. Instead the U.S. moved its Embassy to Jerusalem. Absolutely shameful!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah, yes, the old equation of criticizing the government = criticizing a specific group.

Because it usually is a PC way to criticize Jews.

not Jews, "Chosenites"

Every parliamentary political system has extremist politicians because some voters are extremists. Israel has proportional representation, so will have some of them in the parliament. They will use this platform to say stuff.

Whenever these loons say anything crazy, (which is most of the things these idiots say) it gets spread around the world in the international press as an opinion held by the Israeli government as a whole, and used as evidence that Israel wants to exterminate all Arabs in Israel/Palestine.

In contrast, a political party consisting 100% of extremists, like Hammas, whenever they say anything crazy, it gets explained away. Even though, I don't think they've at any point made any reasonable statement. "From the River to the Sea" is a call to genocide of Jews. Nobody in the west seems to listen to what Hammas are actually saying. Their official policies.

Just, stop with the double standards. Israel is not perfect. The Israel - Palestine conflict is one where one side are a bunch of genocidal maniacs and the other is, on the whole, just trying to live in peace. I know Abbas is the official leader of the Palestinian Authority. But the Palestinians see him as a traitor for at all cooperating with Israel. So he has zero influence. The defacto leaders of Palestine are Hammas and Islamic Jihad. Both awful organisations.

 

[Arctish]

"From the River to the Sea" is a call to genocide of Jews.

It's a call to genocide among genocidal assholes. I'm including Netanyahu in that category.

It has not always been one, nor is it always one now.

It started as a call for the end of the religious-ethno State of Israel and its replacement with a unified secular State. Many, if not most, of the anti-war protesters who use it now would be perfectly fine with Jews remaining in Palestine as long as they didn't get to be assholes to everyone else living there.

Nobody in the west seems to listen to what Hammas are actually saying. Their official policies.

Just, stop with the double standards. Israel is not perfect. The Israel - Palestine conflict is one where one side are a bunch of genocidal maniacs and the other is, on the whole, just trying to live in peace.

Good advice. I agree.

I know Abbas is the official leader of the Palestinian Authority. But the Palestinians see him as a traitor for at all cooperating with Israel. So he has zero influence. The defacto leaders of Palestine are Hammas and Islamic Jihad. Both awful organisations.

The Palestinians see him that way, or some Palestinians see him that way?

The last time I looked into it (recently) Palestinians were frustrated with his lack of success, not with his commitment to diplomacy as a path to peace.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"From the River to the Sea" is a call to genocide of Jews.

It's a call to genocide among genocidal assholes. I'm including Netanyahu in that category.

That's just not true. Netanyahu is a classic conservative. He doesn't think appeasement or being a pussy will help. He believes that the only thing that will make the Palestinians stop is to hit them hard each time they attack. I think he's fully justified and reasonable. I fully sympathise with his position.

But he's now very impopular in Israel, and is fucked in the next re-election. Jews don't give a fuck about ideology or religion. They're not tribal. They care about results. And Netanyahu hasn't delivered.

It has not always been one, nor is it always one now.

It started as a call for the end of the religious-ethno State of Israel and its replacement with a unified secular State. Many, if not most, of the anti-war protesters who use it now would be perfectly fine with Jews remaining in Palestine as long as they didn't get to be assholes to everyone else living there.

It's just not practical. I think we just have to accept that the Palestinians are always going to be a wild animal lashing out if given any opportunity. It's sad, and has it's historical reasons and explanations. A big part of it is political Islam's (Islamism's) seeming inability to live in harmony with anyone (Muslim or otherwise). As long as the Palestinians are Muslim, I don't think anything can be done to fix this.

I know Abbas is the official leader of the Palestinian Authority. But the Palestinians see him as a traitor for at all cooperating with Israel. So he has zero influence. The defacto leaders of Palestine are Hammas and Islamic Jihad. Both awful organisations.

The Palestinians see him that way, or some Palestinians see him that way?

The last time I looked into it (recently) Palestinians were frustrated with his lack of success, not with his commitment to diplomacy as a path to peace.

Yes, he's preposterously corrupt. As has every Palestinian leader always been. Fun fact, Yasser Arafat used most of the money PLO was given to live a life of (gay) luxury on his travels, and meeting foreign dignitaries. His "modest" home in Palestine, wasn't a place he lived much. It was just for show. Everything about that guy was a carefully crafted lie, the foreign press ate up. And while the money kept flowing to PLO, the Palestinian people let him get away with it. He's the guy who set the standard for the following Palestine leadership. He didn't give a shit about the palestinians. Just like no other Palestinian leader has.

The Palestinian people are acting like anyone who has lost hope. They're desperate and self destructive. Just like the Roma/Gypsies of Europe, whenever they are given outside help they just fuck it up everytime. It's hard to see what can be done about it. But just giving them money won't work. It will never go to where it's supposed to.

 

[Arctish]

"From the River to the Sea" is a call to genocide of Jews.

It's a call to genocide among genocidal assholes. I'm including Netanyahu in that category.

That's just not true. Netanyahu is a classic conservative. He doesn't think appeasement or being a pussy will help. He believes that the only thing that will make the Palestinians stop is to hit them hard each time they attack. I think he's fully justified and reasonable. I fully sympathise with his position.

Netanyahu is more than a conservative. He is an extreme rightwing racist nationalist hardliner, the protege of other racist ultra-nationalists hardliners like Lehi terrorist Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Irgun terrorist Prime Minister Menachim Begin. A brief history of his life and political career can be found here.

You might remember that he was one of the speakers at a political rally where for 2 hours people chanted "Death to Rabin" for Rabin's negotiation of the Oslo Accords. You might remember that he claimed to have personally sabotaged the Oslo Accords
to ensure Israel would eventually take all of the West Bank. You might remember his participation at the gala event to commemorate the bombing of the King David hotel, complete with an actual Irgun terrorist on hand to describe how the operation was carried out. You might also remember that his government began annexing all of the West Bank in violation of international law before the October terrorist attacks by Hamas.

I have no idea why you think he's reasonable. He's a racist and a religious bigot carrying out the ethnic cleansing of Palestine his mentors began.

But he's now very impopular in Israel, and is fucked in the next re-election. Jews don't give a fuck about ideology or religion. They're not tribal. They care about results. And Netanyahu hasn't delivered.

It has not always been one, nor is it always one now.

It started as a call for the end of the religious-ethno State of Israel and its replacement with a unified secular State. Many, if not most, of the anti-war protesters who use it now would be perfectly fine with Jews remaining in Palestine as long as they didn't get to be assholes to everyone else living there.

It's just not practical. I think we just have to accept that the Palestinians are always going to be a wild animal lashing out if given any opportunity.

Utterly unfounded ahistorical racist drivel.

 

[Gospel]

Utterly unfounded ahistorical racist drivel.

It's hard not to make the mistake DrZoidberg did when you're own culture is known for participating in the transatlantic genocide, Native American Genocide, Aboriginal Genocide in Australia, the partition of India genocide, exploitation of the Caribbean genocide, Herero and Namaqua genocide. Then have the nerve to talk about the violent tendencies of other groups as if we aren't aware of your shit.

 

[Gospel]

Here's the thing. Palestinians, (roughly 2/3 of the population) were financially dependent and politically subordinate to others who progressively acquired irreversible control of their future. This was a thing before the arrival of the Jews which further exasperated it. It's a consistent pattern from the past to the era of Hamas' rise. The same two-thirds of the population, primarily from rural areas, acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Discontent with their pre-Hamas government, they elected Hamas, hoping for an improvement. This group also desired Hamas to recognize Israel's existence. However, their situation worsened when Hamas forcefully took control and halted future elections. Consequently, this population now suffers under Israeli attacks, often mischaracterized as unanimous Hamas supporters. And then we have folks like Zoidberg floating in on cloud 9 proclaiming they are hopeless and what the out of touch and Zionist controlled Israel government is doing is just A ok.