• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
The reason so many Gazan children are killed by IDF bombs is because the IDF drops bombs on them,

The reason IDF is dropping bombs is because Hamas drops bombs.
The difference is that Gazans target civilians, while Israelis do not.
Tom

Ok I'm going out of pocket on this so take it easy like Sunday morning on me.

The IDF's aggressive bombing is a reaction to the indiscriminate assaults by Hamas, benefiting both parties. Hamas aims to gain Arab world support against Israel through these actions, while Israel uses them as justification to increase control over Palestine. Gazans generally understand the improbability of achieving a favorable outcome from the conflict. There is a widespread belief that Hamas, along with nations like Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, and even Saudi Arabia, lack true commitment to the Palestinian cause (in other words AINT NOBODY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS). Regarding the aid from Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran; one is seen as engaging in proxy wars, and the other, an ally of the U.S., is improving its relationship with Israel. If Saudi Arabia were truly invested, they could potentially mediate, leveraging their position to improve relations with both Iran (through China) and Israel (through the US) for the benefit of Palestinians and themselves. They could transform Palestine into a cultural tourism hub, with Jerusalem as a neutral global capital.

But that's a pipe dream.

Ok, I'm back in pocket again. By out of pocket I mean speaking frankly/wildly with no sources to back up my claims. I mean I do it all the time but this one is different. Trust me ;)
 
The reason so many Gazan children are killed by IDF bombs is because the IDF drops bombs on them,

The reason IDF is dropping bombs is because Hamas drops bombs.
So it is revenge.
The difference is that Gazans target civilians, while Israelis do not.
Tom
ETA ~Israel has more and better bombs, for sure. But everyone in Gaza knew that in the lead up to Oct 7. Gazans chose the terrorist attack anyway.~
Your pointless "whataboutism" makes a distinction without an practical difference. Hamas (not Gazans) target civilians. The IDF allegedly does not target civilians but manages to kill 5 to 10 as many civilians as Hamas. Now, it may make you feel better that the IDF does not "intend" to kill 5 to 10 times as many civilians as Hamas does, but I am fairly certain the IDF's intent does not make those dead any less dead. Nor does it make any difference to their families. Nor does it reduce its effect on the cycle of revenge both sides carry out.

Your persistent conflation of Gazan with Hamas is consistent with the views of a bigoted Zionist. Your persistent iimplication that the Gazan civilian population (not Hamas) chose the Oct. 7 atrocity is also consistent with the view of bigoted Zionists. And the implication that means the Gazan civilian population deserves what is occuring reeks of gloating.
 
Of course they all knew about it. It was the worst kept secret. Everyone knew about it. Everyone. Israel and USA had been saying since the moment Hammas took power for the first time in Gaza.

They removed many of the orchsrds (Gazas main income) and replaced it with military installations.

Oh, really?

Everyone except the Israelis could see military installations being built where there used to be orchards. Which is weird considering the Israelis have all those observation points built into the containment wall being patrolled 24/7 by IDF soldiers. And yet the Israelis failed to do anything about the deadly peril even though they kill people in Gaza via artillery, tank fire, and drone strikes regularly.

Why do you think they built the wall?

For the same reason the authorities in Rome built a wall around the Rome Ghetto when they forced the Jews of Rome to live there: to control the movements and economic opportunities of an unwanted ethno-religious community, and to exploit them for the benefit of the preferred religious and racial demographic.

Non-Jewish Palestinians were forced into Gaza when their homes and property in Ashkelon and the surrounding area were seized by Zionists and turned over to immigrants from Europe. The newly created border was patrolled by the IDF and eventually a permanent, fortified barrier was built.

Meanwhile, Palestinian villages and cultural sites were destroyed to erase the indigenous Palestinian people's history and prevent their return.


"We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish, state here... Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of the Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exists; not only do the books not exist [but] the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal arose in the place of Mahalul, Gvat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Haneifs, and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tell Shaman. There is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

— Moshe Dayan, Haaretz, 4 April 1969 <link>

They could see what was happening. The IDF has historically been very gentle in how they handle the Palestinians. They let the Palestinians get away with the most awful stuff all the time. The Palestinians are the worst neighbours. IDF only gets involved to stop the most egregrious Palestinian offences. But mostly they have left the Palestinians alone, even though it's been obvious all the time what Hammas has been planning. That's why the Israelis are so angry with Netanyahu for his failure 7/10. They knew an attack like this would happen. The IDF had planned for it. Yet when it came, couldn't catch them in time.

Where are you getting your information?

Seriously, it's like everything you know about the conflict comes straight from some Fox News talking head.

The IDF has not historically been very gentle, unless you think shooting civilians doing things like enjoying a picnic or planting olive trees or even just sitting in a garden at home is a gentle way to treat unarmed civilians going about their lives.

I could go on for pages just listing instances where the IDF has been anything but gentle. The evidence of mistreatment of Palestinians is overwhelming.
I think the only reason the Palestinians keep supporting these ghastly and barbaric Islamists might be because they are the least bad option for them. Abbas is a non starter. At least with Hammas they got functioning hospitals and schools.

I sympathise with the situation for the Palestinians. It sucks. Their desperation is exploited by other Muslims to threaten Israel. But they refuse to accept being partners with Isael, (which would be the obvious thing to do). Israel is the best functioning government of the Middle East.

What is your evidence they "refuse" to be partners with Israel?

Hammas and Islamic Jihad has wide popularity in Palestine. There's seemingly zero political will among the Palestinians to cooperate with Israel. Any movement to bridge the divide, are all Israeli/Jewish initiatives. The Jews are trying so hard to make friends, all the time. If there was any Palestinian interest in living in peace we'd seen some tangible result by now. They just keep going on about getting occupied land back. Which is not realistic, nor fair for the Jews.

This sounds like trolling.

The Jews (but not the Israelis?) are trying so hard to make friends but asking them to give back the land they stole is unfair ???


The Oslo Accords were all about being partners with Israel. So are the offers the PA has repeatedly made ever since. Heck, even Hamas' willingness to recognize the 1967 borders in exchange for Israel fucking off is acceptance of partnership in a peace deal.

PLO was just a vehicle with which Yasser Arafat could scam the international community. The Palestinians never cared about him. He certainly never cared about the Palestinian people. He was always a joke. He's the same kind of guy as Abbas. Arafat cared about Arafat. Abbas cares about Abbas. Nobody cares about the Palestinians. Nobody. All their leaders continually fuck them over. Oddly enough, the Palestinians best friend is Israel. They're continually... so nice to the Palestinians.

Enjoy your goat.

 
The reason IDF is dropping bombs is because Hamas drops bombs.
Using the mighty Gazan Air Force to strike deep into Israel. :rolleyesa:

View attachment 45258

Last I knew, Gazans had launched over a thousand untargeted bombs at Israelis on October 7.
Tom
Do you have a source for that?
What source would you accept?
Tom
Just provide one instead of stalling.
 

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.
It was the norm for the treatment of Jews in Muslim lands. That's the "peaceful coexistence" you want to return to.

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.
There's no reason to put such a restriction on it. We don't have a lot of data points because the Muslims certainly aren't going to document it and they were the ones in charge.
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.
The problem is you assume everything is as the terrorists say it is.

And you're mixing up "valid target" with "human shield". And if I remember correctly those "soccer players" were shooting an anti-tank missile. Against most anti-tank missiles the response is to put as much fire as possible as quickly as possible on where it came from because your best defense is to hit the guy guiding it. (And this is one of the reasons the Javelin is so potent--it's fire and forget, the shooter can get off the X as soon as the missile clears the tube, they don't have to stick around behind a smoke trail that screams "Shoot me!")

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.
No. I question the automatic assignment of non-combatant status.

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.
Which doesn't change the reality.

Anyway, we have a point of reference as to how accurately Israel is shooting. Hezbollah is reporting dead combatants.


87% of those killed are combatants.

And a reason to question the reports out of Gaza:


He says the IDF is shooting at them everywhere. But let's consider the facts:

1) You really think the IDF is going to single out someone in front of a reporter's camera to shoot??

2) Note the location. The IDF is not within rifle range of the location, even with a sniper rifle and that was a burst of fire. The shooter is pretty obviously Hamas or the like. But the world laps it up as wanton IDF killing of civilians.
 
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?

The devil is in the details.

1) Note the specified timeframe. Specifically to exclude all of those escaping from Europe. That's going to skew the population more Muslim.

2) And nobody denies that overall the Muslims were a majority. Give the land to the majority, it goes to the Muslims. What the partition did differently is look at it piece by piece rather than as a whole. Give each chunk to the side that was most numerous in that chunk. Think of blue cities in red states. The Senators are Republican but some of the House of Representatives are Democrats. Same population, two ways of counting it.

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?
I disagree with the formation of Israel. It was basically the last colonial act. However, I do not believe we should undo it. Nor do I think it's possible--the Jews are going to perceive such an attempt as an attempted genocide.


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?
Knowing their actions will result in war doesn't make their actions right or wrong.

And the ones that were reduced to penniless beggars were the Jews. Most Muslim departures were before the fighting broke out and they took their stuff with them. Then when they wouldn't agree to not continue to fight they weren't allowed to return. It's the Jews who were expelled that lost everything.

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.
You asked for evidence of massacring Jews and I was pointing out that I had already provided what you were asking for in a later post. You then walked that back to restrict it sufficiently that data would likely be hard to find. Yes, that was Algeria--but note that the tone is about how horrific it was but not that it was an uncommon event. The reporter was writing about something normal. Think plane crash vs alien spacecraft crash.
 

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!
The idea of Jerusalem as an open city was rejected by the Palestinians.

And at this point it would be rejected by Israel--they aren't going to trust their safety to a third party, especially given how the UN has behaved in Lebanon. They were supposed to keep Hezbollah from rearming--but they're willfully blind to the totally obvious.

And while I don't think His Flatulence should have moved the embassy I also don't think it's relevant. No peace move can counter the billions Iran is spending on war.
 
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.
Willful blindness.

It always has been a call for genocide.

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.
They pretended so for western consumption.

And don't trust Wikipedia only politically sensitive issue. They have two severe problems:

1) They are far more interested in a majority opinion than in facts. Sorry, you don't get to vote on the truth.

2) They are vulnerable to mass efforts to manipulate the "facts" and thus are increasingly coming under the control of the disinformation crowd. Same like Wikileaks soon became a tool of Moscow.

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.
Actual authority comes from the money. Popular opinion means little in a dictatorship.
 

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.
It's not racist, "Palestinian" isn't a race.

And it's because they have been under the control of radicalizers for a lifetime. Any group treated the way they have been is going to behave like wild animals. The only hope for reform is to quit throwing gas on the fire (supplying money for terror.)
 
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.
Sorry, but you're the one who doesn't get it.

The Palestinians have never actually acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Rather, the majority used to accept Israel's existence elsewhere, unaware that there was no elsewhere.

And while they aren't unanimous Hamas supporters the 10/7 massacre enjoys widespread support. The thing is, they know what their leaders tell them, little more. In Arab lands one of the reasons to support 10/7 is to protect the Al Asqa Mosque. Never mind that the actual threat to it was from Hamas. (Israel shot down a Hamas rocket that would have hit the mosque. And, yes, they are very good at predicting where an inbound will land. They have years of practice in narrowing down the area where the sirens go off.)
 
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.

At what point did I suggest Iran would act differently? It seems you're addressing points I haven't made. My actual statement is about the role Israel played in Hamas' rise to power. You seem to express affirmation so I have no flying fuck of an idea what you're on about.
The point is that it's irrelevant in the big picture. You're focusing on mice and ignoring the Iranian elephant.
 
Hamas' (the terrorist organization in power by force for those who didn't get the memo) main objective is the eradication of Israel and enforcing their interpretation of Islamic law through any means they see fit (even if that means killing & raping Palestinians & Israeli civilians,). As such achieving a lasting peace is impossible with them. Honestly I consider Hamas more barbaric than Islamic. Israel has every right to defend itself from what's best described as a genocidal terrorist organization.

then there is the Palestinian population. Diverse and not uniform in their views. Yet, it seems we are expected to ignore the killing of women and children on the grounds that women and children have been killed? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
We are not ignoring it. We are saying it's not a reason to change course. They knew what was going to happen and still support 10/7. If the Palestinian population considers it an acceptable price then who are we to tell them it's not?
 

And I don't know how to distinguish between the Gazans who knew about the military infrastructure being built next to or under civilian infrastructures like apartment buildings or houses of worship. But I cannot believe that only Hamas knew about it.
So I don't have any clear way to distinguish between Hamas and their supporters, Gazan or foreign.
Tom
That sort of stuff can't be hidden from the locals. But that doesn't mean the people actually support it.

Much more important to me is that the majority consider 10/7 a good thing. They have to know an ass-whooping was going to follow.
 
You also seem to be making the claim that all children in Gaza are trained to be Hamas militants.
It's taught as part of their normal schooling there. Not full combat training, but that attacking Israel is the right thing to do and that they should aid the effort.
 
Link to the evidence that massacring Jews was common, or admit you can't find any.
Here is a distressing list of massacres that occurred in in British Mandate before the 14/05/48. It does not sort between victims, just lists them.
And clear evidence of why I say Wikipedia is untrustworthy.

2/17/48, calls the responsible party "Jewish settlers" but the description is "57 Arabs killed while taking part in attack on Jewish settlements Tirat Tzvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein HaNatziv". Really now, blaming people for defending themselves? Yeah, if you read the description it's clear but if you're just counting up numbers you'll miss that. That makes me question how accurate the rest of the table is.
 
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?

The devil is in the details.

1) Note the specified timeframe. Specifically to exclude all of those escaping from Europe. That's going to skew the population more Muslim.

2) And nobody denies that overall the Muslims were a majority. Give the land to the majority, it goes to the Muslims. What the partition did differently is look at it piece by piece rather than as a whole. Give each chunk to the side that was most numerous in that chunk. Think of blue cities in red states. The Senators are Republican but some of the House of Representatives are Democrats. Same population, two ways of counting it.
Link to your sources, Loren.

Show us that you know which Proposal we're talking about, the date it was submitted, and to whom.

I believe you are bullshitting. Prove me wrong here.

Show us the Proposal.

The rest of your post is just more bullshit and Zionist dogma, and attempts to shift the conversation away from Israel and Palestine so you can include things that happened on different continents at different times. For example:
And the ones that were reduced to penniless beggars were the Jews. Most Muslim departures were before the fighting broke out and they took their stuff with them. Then when they wouldn't agree to not continue to fight they weren't allowed to return. It's the Jews who were expelled that lost everything.
The Palestinians who were reduced to penniless beggars by Zionist terrorists carrying out the ethnic cleansing of Palestine were Jews?

Do tell. And link to your sources.

Also, most Muslim departures happened before "the fighting" broke out? Do you mean the riots in the 1920s, the terrorist bombings and shootings of the 1930s, or shortly before April 2, 1948 when Plan Dalet was enacted?

Link to wherever you got that information, too.

Also please link to the source of information that Palestinians were offered the chance to return to their homes. And who exactly was pushing for it? I already know Ben Gurion and Sharett were 100% opposed. I'm sure Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had plenty to say about undoing all the hard work the Irgun and Lehi terrorists had done to ethnically cleanse the land of non-Jews so a Jewish State could be formed. Who was it that wanted to bring the non-Jews back and had the political capital to make that offer?
 
Back
Top Bottom