Just pay attention to what happens over there. Beware the bias caused by the fact that most Palestinian attacks are routine and thus not news. Peck, peck, peck, SLAM. Then the pecks die down for a while.
Then you’ve just described a cycle—but only condemned one half of it.
No, because the pecks grow because of terror money, not because of what Israel did.
You say Palestinian attacks are routine and underreported, but you ignore why that “routine” exists: occupation, blockade, displacement, and decades of unresolved injustice. You frame the Israeli response as a justified “slam,” but forget that every slam involves real people—flattened homes, starving children, entire families erased. That’s not pecking back. That’s devastation—and it doesn’t disappear because the headlines fade.
Which ignores the fact that this predates any of your supposed causes.
Once again, taking Hamas propaganda as true. The why is because they are paid vast sums to do so.
Then prove it.
Show the “vast sums.” Show a financial paper trail that explains why a population under siege, living in rubble, drinking contaminated water, and burying thousands of dead would need to be paid to resist. You’re not offering analysis—you’re offering cartoon logic: that people with nothing somehow need a cash incentive to be angry, desperate, or violent.
You are demanding an impossible degree of proof.
Where is the money coming from, a money fairy?? Arafat was a billionaire. The current crop of leaders are billionaires. There's no on-the-books source of anywhere near that kind of money. Nor is there any on-the-books source of their weapons. You can't just go buy that sort of stuff without and end user certificate--and only a country can get those.
The reality is far more uncomfortable than your fantasy of mercenaries. This isn’t about payouts—it’s about powerlessness. When you reduce generational trauma and systemic oppression to a payroll, you’re not exposing propaganda. You’re swallowing your own.
If oppression is the cause why isn't there a horrible mess in Western Sahara or whatever it's called these days? There's very little relationship between terror and oppression. But there's a huge relationship between terror and money.
You ignore that Palestinian attacks on Israel are just the norm.
No—I’m pointing out that if both sides are locked in a cycle of violence, the moral responsibility lies most with the side that holds overwhelming power, control, and capacity to de-escalate. Saying “it’s just the norm” doesn’t excuse it. It condemns the conditions that made it normal. And if your answer to a decades-long pattern of occupation, blockade, and despair is to shrug and say “they started it,” then you’re not describing a war. You’re excusing its permanence.
Except it's not a cycle. It's a pattern that is repeated as the terrorists wish. If it were a pattern the downtime would not be so variable.
No. Just because they shook hands doesn't mean a deal was reached.
And while the PLO "renounced" terrorism they didn't actually do it. Their policies didn't change. Pay-for-slay remains their top priority.
Note that Olso was an interim agreement, it kicked the can on everything important.
Then you’ve just proved the point: when Palestinians make formal diplomatic moves—like recognizing Israel, signing Oslo, renouncing terrorism—they’re dismissed as meaningless gestures. But when Israel demands recognition, it’s treated as nonnegotiable.
They are dismissed as meaningless because they were shams.
They made formal moves--but didn't follow through. And walked when presented an agreement close enough to their demands they couldn't risk having a counteroffer accepted.
Oslo resolved nothing, purely can-kicking.
They said they renounced terrorism but didn't actually stop doing it.
Yes, Oslo was interim. But that’s exactly the problem. Every time Palestinians conceded, the process stalled. Settlement expansion accelerated. Final status issues were postponed indefinitely. And now, decades later, people like you pretend it was all just a handshake.
Except you are pretending they conceded. No real concessions were made.
You can’t say Palestinians never tried diplomacy while rejecting every example of it as insincere. That’s not a critique of Oslo. That’s a refusal to ever allow peace to begin.
I say they never tried it because what they did was a sham. If they actually wanted a diplomatic solution why did Arafat walk? That was an absolutely golden opportunity for them to make peace--but they didn't even counteroffer, just walked away. That speaks volumes.
No. I'm refusing to accept any "initiative" where they say yes, but not really. When it came down to the details Arafat walked away. That's what matters.
And yet when Israel walked away from Camp David, continued building settlements during negotiations, and imposed facts on the ground while “talks” stalled—none of that, in your view, invalidated their sincerity.
You're expecting concessions for talks. Israel was pressured into that, but wasn't going to play fool me twice.
You’re not applying a standard. You’re applying a veto. When Palestinians say yes, you say “not really.” When they compromise, you call it deception. When they resist, you call it terrorism. And when they’re silent, you call it complicity.
I look at actions. "We renounce terrorism" vs continuing pay-for-slay. I consider the latter to mean an awful lot more than the former. If they truly had renounced terrorism they wouldn't continue to reward it.
This isn’t about what Arafat did. It’s about making sure no Palestinian answer is ever the right one—because the goal isn’t peace. It’s permanent blame.
It is about what Arafat didn't do.
No. The Palestinian Authority provides financial support for those in Israeli jails because of attacks on Jews. They do not provide support for common criminals.
Then you’ve just proved the point.
You’re not objecting to the act of providing support—you’re objecting to who receives it. And the category you’ve defined includes anyone imprisoned by Israel for acts deemed “against Jews,” regardless of whether those acts were part of organized resistance, armed conflict, or political dissent. In other words, you’ve taken the occupying power’s definition of guilt as absolute, and condemned even the families of those detained—many without trial—for simply existing on the wrong side of that definition.
No. I'm saying that if it were about caring for the families it would apply to all criminals. But since it's only for terrorists it's about supporting terror.
This isn’t a moral position. It’s a colonial logic: resistance is criminal, prisoners are terrorists, and supporting them is a crime. By that standard, every liberation movement in history—from Algeria to South Africa—would be painted as illegitimate.
There's a simple test of legitimacy: What are they shooting at? Whoever plots the attack point, what do they believe is there? Civilians = terrorist. Government/military = freedom fighter. There's usually little overlap, groups either target legitimate targets or civilians, rarely both.
So let’s be clear: calling it “pay-for-slay” isn’t about justice. It’s about erasing the context of occupation and framing all resistance as barbarism. That’s not clarity. That’s propaganda.
We call it pay for slay because that's what it is. You kill Jews, the government provides for your family.
