Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Gospel]

I don't see anyone supporting the violence against Jews. That's entirely manufactured by your mind.

 

[TomC]

Given what I see as so much vicious hypocrisy and poor information I see from the anti-Semites on this thread, your tongue-in-cheek comment just looked like more of the same.
Tom

No argument? Just call them anti-Semites.

I've been arguing.
Perhaps you failed to notice.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Explain, then, why many chunks of the wall are built to block small arms fire, not merely people.

Explain why it's ok for those walls to be built on land that doesn't belong to Israel? Don't bother, I know your answer. Hamas.

And explain why Egypt was even more aggressive about wall-building.

The purpose of their wall is to block operatives from groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda from entering Egypt. Irrespective of how effective it may or may not be, its situated on the Egyptian side of the border.

And Israel doesn't block commerce in peaceful goods across the border. Military goods are not permitted, dual use stuff only with regulation that obviously proved inadequate so I expect it to get a lot stricter.

Imagine if China, or even Russia, had the power to dictate what enters the U.S. – it's unlikely you'd be comfortable with any nation exerting as much influence over American imports as Israel does over goods entering Gaza. This control is a significant issue. But but but Hamas, right?!

 

[TomC]

Imagine if China, or even Russia, had the power to dictate what enters the U.S. – it's unlikely you'd be comfortable with any nation exerting as much influence over American imports as Israel does over goods entering Gaza. This control is a significant issue. But but but Hamas, right?!

Seriously?
Lemme know when Chinese people start sending military hardware to the KKK! Then I'll be fine with heavily monitoring Chinese imports.

And yeah. Hamas! They're a violently abusive organization that does even more damage to their (local) supporters than they do to their Israeli neighbors. And they're supported by an international consortium of violent Islamicists.

What's with that? Why do they get so much support in the U.S. and on IIDB?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

And yeah. Hamas!

The emergence of Hamas is a relatively new development compared to the longstanding control measures in place. If my examples don't resonate, feel free to consider any country you wouldn't want overseeing U.S. imports to understand my point. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the specific country might not matter to you; you might even accept Iran managing our resources if it meant unwavering support for Israel despite wrong doings.

 

[Gospel]

Given what I see as so much vicious hypocrisy and poor information I see from the anti-Semites on this thread, your tongue-in-cheek comment just looked like more of the same.
Tom

No argument? Just call them anti-Semites.

I've been arguing.
Perhaps you failed to notice.
Tom

Yeah. You were doing just fine until that claim about anti-Semites being on this thread.

 

[TomC]

Yeah. You were doing just fine until that claim about anti-Semites being on this thread.

Perhaps you missed the post where I explained what I meant, quite precisely, by antisemitism.
Tom
ETA ~ post# 2460, in case you need a "source" ~

 

[Gospel]

What's with that? Why do they get so much support in the U.S. and on IIDB?

The problem lies in the assumption that backing Palestinian civilians is synonymous with backing Hamas. It's crucial to understand that not all Palestinians are affiliated with Hamas, nor did all Palestinians vote for Hamas. This argument often becomes the default response for those uneasy with criticism directed at the Israeli government (not Jews).

 

[Gospel]

Yeah. You were doing just fine until that claim about anti-Semites being on this thread.

Perhaps you missed the post where I explained what I meant, quite precisely, by antisemitism.
Tom

No. I didn't miss it at all. Your explanation came precisely after your ground breaking epiphany that anti-Semites where on this thread. And after being called on it instead of saying, "yeah dude, I went overboard" you instead suggested that criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians should not automatically be labeled as anti-Semitic because it conflates criticism of a state's policies with bigotry against a religious or ethnic group. Like no shit sherlock. That doesn't explain why you think there are Anti-Semites on the thread.

 

[TomC]

That doesn't explain why you think there are Anti-Semites on the thread.

Let me explain this again.

Expecting Israelis to be less militaristic because maybe Palestinians will be less violent, eventually, is antisemitic. That isn't going to happen. It's going to get worse for everyone, especially the people who live there. Who are mostly Semitic people.

That's what I mean by antisemitism, in this context.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Let me ask this.
Netanyahu's polling numbers are in the toilet, as far as I know. He's almost certainly going to be replaced in the next election.

Which do you think is more likely to replace him? A peacenik accomodationist, or a more effective war monger?

Supposing it's a more hardened military dude, maybe an IDF general or something, could we all agree that Hamas helped elect an IDF general?
Tom

 

[Arctish]

Let me ask this.
Netanyahu's polling numbers are in the toilet, as far as I know. He's almost certainly going to be replaced in the next election.

Which do you think is more likely to replace him? A peacenik accomodationist, or a more effective war monger?

Supposing it's a more hardened military dude, maybe an IDF general or something, could we all agree that Hamas helped elect an IDF general?
Tom

I don't think there's any chance a peacenik accomodationist will be elected.

There is a possibility a pragmatist like Yitzhak Rabin would replace Netanyahu. Rabin's speeches about the threat to the Jewishness of the Jewish State without a Two State solution are looking more and more prescient every day. I think a lot of Israelis are realizing that by creating a system of walled ghettoes and illegal settlements in the Gaza and the West Bank, they've painted themselves into a corner. They can't just walk away and absolve themselves of responsibility for what goes on in and around them. And they can't keep all the land without having to keep the Palestinians, too. Ethnic cleansing isn't working fast enough to clear out all the non-Jews before they have more children, and genocide is still off the table.

I think its most likely that Netanyahu will be replaced by another protege of a Zionist terrorist. Maybe an Ariel Sharon-type from the Irgun lineage. Sharon was a pretty effective war monger. IIRC he's the only Prime Minister who was convicted of complicity in war crimes by an Israeli court. I can see the coalition that kept Netanyahu in power backing a guy like that.

 

[laughing dog]

What I believe is not relevant. I asked for a source about a claim of fact. Apparently you don't have one.

I would have trouble coming up with a clear source for Trump's presidency.
Or tomorrow's sunrise in the east.

Okay - you don't have one. I get it.

But you can go on dodging around Gazan violence because you need a source that you can dismiss.
Tom

It is either incredibly stupid or dishonest to suggest that asking for a source for a claim of fact is some sort of dodge. I suspect your response is the perfect example of the "every accusation is projection".

"The military said some 9,500 missiles, rockets and drones were fired at Israel from Gaza and other fronts since Oct. 7, and 2,000 of them had been shot down by air defences designed to ignore projectiles on a course to land harmlessly in open areas."
This is snippet from Reuters, early December."
If you still aren't sure what to believe, Google it yourself.

I noticed that that 9.500 number is since Oct. 7, but all in all, that suffices. I find it informative. That was not so hard. If you had answered promptly instead of projecting dumbness, the discussion could have progressed faster.

 

[TomC]

It is either incredibly stupid or dishonest to suggest that asking for a source for a claim of fact is some sort of dodge.

Lemme ask again.
Do you believe that Gazans launched a thousand or more bombs at Israelis, during or after Oct 7th, 2023?

You said you didn't know what to believe. I'm sure the information is available. Easily available. But you said you don't know what to believe.
What's with that?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

It is either incredibly stupid or dishonest to suggest that asking for a source for a claim of fact is some sort of dodge.

Lemme ask again.
Do you believe that Gazans launched a thousand or more bombs at Israelis, during or after Oct 7th, 2023?

You said you didn't know what to believe. I'm sure the information is available. Easily available. But you said you don't know what to believe.
What's with that?
Tom

No, I did not say I did not know what to believe. I said what I believe is irrelevant when one is asking for a claim of fact. Perhaps you should read posts more carefully before you respond in order to avoid such blatant mistakes.
Apparently the information is not easily available given how long it took you to substantiate your claim.

I never doubted that Hamas (not Gazans in general) attacked Israelis through the air and on the ground, killing over 1,000 people. I had no idea what the actual number of projectiles were, which is why I asked for a source for your number.

 

[laughing dog]

Expecting Israelis to be less militaristic because maybe Palestinians will be less violent, eventually, is antisemitic.

It may be hopeful , or naive, or unrealistic or stupid, but it is not anti-semitic.

 

[TomC]

Apparently the information is not easily available given how long it took you to substantiate your claim.

Did you know that Gazans bombed Israel, with far more than a thousand bombs, when you made that post?
Tom

 

[TomC]

Expecting Israelis to be less militaristic because maybe Palestinians will be less violent, eventually, is antisemitic.

It may be hopeful , or naive, or unrealistic or stupid, but it is not anti-semitic.

I see it as antisemitic.

Refusing to accept the reality and hoping that the humans involved will change is accepting the violent status quo.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Expecting Israelis to be less militaristic because maybe Palestinians will be less violent, eventually, is antisemitic.

It may be hopeful , or naive, or unrealistic or stupid, but it is not anti-semitic.

I see it as antisemitic.

Sorry to disappoint you, but that does not make it so.

Refusing to accept the reality and hoping that the humans involved will change is accepting the violent status quo.
Tom

No, it is not. But even if it is, that, in and of itself, is not anti-semitic.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently the information is not easily available given how long it took you to substantiate your claim.

Did you know that Gazans bombed Israel, with far more than a thousand bombs, when you made that post?
Tom

Yes, I read your post with comprehension. You should try it.