Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[NoHolyCows]

You dismiss the Arab Peace Initiative as unrealistic while offering no alternative except perpetual siege and bombardment. That isn’t realism. That’s fatalism dressed up as strategy. You accuse others of falling into fascism while defending policies that collectively punish civilians to enforce obedience. You’ve normalized a worldview where decency is weakness and domination is the only viable path.

How am I supposed have an alternative??

You're falling into the leftist trap again, assuming there must be an answer. And your keys must be under the streetlight.

Peace can only happen if Iran agrees--and Iran has not shown up at the table.

You say you’re misunderstood because rebuttals don’t match your words. But here’s the reality: we’re responding to what your words imply. If you say mass civilian deaths “don’t matter,” don’t act shocked when people hear you defending a moral abyss.

No, you keep making important changes to what I said.

You ask how you’re supposed to have an alternative. That’s the point. You’ve surrendered to the idea that cruelty is the only path left. You talk about “the leftist trap” of believing solutions exist, as if searching for ways to end mass death is naïve. No – what’s naïve is thinking perpetual siege and bombardment will produce anything but deeper cycles of violence. Iran is a player, yes, but blaming them for everything just masks that Israel still chooses its methods. Fatalism isn’t realism. It’s just despair masquerading as analysis.

You insist I’m misrepresenting you, but your words are clear: “civilian deaths don’t matter because they’re the wrong yardstick.” That’s not a distortion. That’s your own admission that human cost isn’t part of your moral calculus. If you don’t like what your words reveal, change them – don’t blame others for hearing exactly what you’re saying.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

You say I’m assuming the blockade pressures rulers without evidence. So why else cut off food, fuel, and medicine to an entire population? Humanitarian starvation isn’t a neutral tactic. It’s coercion by definition. Calling it “taking over distribution” doesn’t erase the reality of children going hungry to weaken Hamas’s grip. That is collective punishment, whether you admit it or not.

Why else? Because it's Hamas's primary means of control and it's primary source of income.

Direct distribution makes it pretty hard for them to do this.

You argue civilian-to-combatant ratios are the “closest yardstick” for strategic gain. That’s not a yardstick at all. Proportionality isn’t about body counts – it’s about whether anticipated military advantage justifies foreseeable civilian harm. Reducing proportionality to ratios flattens moral reasoning into a spreadsheet.

And how do you propose to measure this?

You insist my standard would condemn every Western urban operation, therefore my standard is wrong. Maybe it condemns them because they deserve condemnation. Your logic amounts to: “If this rules out things we do, the rule must be flawed.” That’s not principle. That’s institutional self-preservation masquerading as moral clarity.

It amounts to you not understanding war.

Finally, you say I keep citing hospital strikes as evidence of wrongdoing despite knowing hospitals lose protection when used militarily. Yes – when used militarily. But targeting decisions still require verification, warnings, and precautions. Not every hospital strike is automatically justified just because Hamas violates the rules first. You keep using their war crimes as an umbrella for anything done in response. That’s not law. That’s moral outsourcing.

And you have zero evidence of any such wrongs.

You say Hamas uses aid as income and control, and that justifies starving civilians to break their grip. But punishing an entire population to weaken rulers is the very definition of collective punishment. You can’t bomb bakeries, block flour trucks, and cut off water then call it “humanitarian strategy.” Direct distribution isn’t happening at scale – children are still starving. That isn’t moral precision. It’s coercion by starvation.

You ask how to measure proportionality if not with body ratios. Simple: by asking whether striking a target offers concrete, direct military advantage significant enough to outweigh foreseeable civilian harm. If destroying one tunnel shaft collapses an apartment block, is that shaft worth fifty civilians? That’s proportionality analysis. Reducing it to “combatant kill counts vs civilians” is moral accountancy, not ethical warfare.

You say I don’t understand war because I refuse to exempt Western militaries from critique. That’s revealing. You think if a standard indicts your side, the standard is flawed. I think if a standard indicts your side, maybe your side needs to change. That’s the difference between moral reasoning and tribal defense.

You claim I have zero evidence of wrongdoing in hospital strikes. Multiple independent investigations, including by UN agencies and humanitarian groups, documented attacks lacking proper verification or carried out despite warnings of patients and staff present. You dismiss them all as biased because acknowledging them would force you to confront the reality that even justified targets don’t erase obligations to protect the innocent around them. Your blanket denial isn’t rigor. It’s reflex.

NHC

 

[NoHolyCows]

You say Hamas only asks for certain prisoners “showing their motives aren’t about the people.” Of course Hamas’s motives are corrupt – but you’re still accepting their hostage list as proof of guilt. That’s outsourcing moral judgment to a terrorist PR campaign, whether you admit it or not.

Once again, strawman.

The point about only asking for the terrorists is that it's not about freeing their people.

You argue Mandela’s popularity was “just the left liking him,” not a reflection on his actions. Yet you call him a terrorist without applying the same label to state forces targeting civilians. Your definitions remain convenient tools for your politics, not consistent principles.

1) For some stupid reason the world doesn't call it terrorism when state forces do it.

2) You haven't established the relevance. Once again, you're assuming Israel is wrong so the facts must be that Israel is wrong.

You dismiss accountability by claiming I only want to prove Israel wrong. No – I want any side killing civilians to be accountable. You want to define justice as whatever your allies do. That’s not law. That’s tribalism.

But you want to give Hamas what it wants.

You ask what my perfidy reply addressed. It addressed your logic that widespread Hamas deception voids all civilian protections. It doesn’t. Geneva strips protection for direct misuse, not entire populations based on suspicion.

But what act are you referring to?

You say Israel debunked “the biggest mass grave claim” so the rest can be ignored. That’s not logic. That’s strategic denial. Mass graves exist whether one photo was miscaptioned or not. You keep pretending refuting a single example erases the reality of mass death.

The photo showed it was done by Hamas, not Israel. The claim in the news has been about supposed mass graves by Israel, are you referring to something else?

You argue colonial land purchases were purely legal, ignoring that law under occupation was designed to privilege settlers. Legality and justice aren’t synonyms. If you can’t grasp that, you’ll never understand why dispossession breeds resistance.

Occupation? The purchases were pre 1948.

On Arafat, you insist walking away proves sabotage. No – it proves the deal didn’t meet minimum demands for dignity. If it was so generous, why not publish the full maps and terms? Because Israel’s offers preserved control while granting nominal sovereignty – a flag on a cage.

What wasn't published?

Finally, you say Palestinians are just pawns with “nothing you can do about it.” That’s precisely the problem. You see them as cannon fodder in Hamas’s strategy and dismiss their rage as manipulation. You never ask why their lives became so disposable – only how best to dispose of them.

NHC

The why is the vast sums being poured into continuing the war. And I answer what to do about it: stop funding the terror.

I have no means of doing that, doesn't mean the questions isn't answered.

You say the hostage list proves Hamas doesn’t care about its people. True – but your broader argument treats their list as proof of guilt for everyone named. That’s my point. Hamas’s depravity doesn’t transform their propaganda into a court ruling. You keep using their demands as a moral shortcut to erase due process entirely.

You admit the world doesn’t call state violence terrorism but dismiss it as a semantic quirk rather than a moral inconsistency. You ask for relevance? The relevance is simple: your definitions of terrorism and legitimacy change depending on who wields the gun. That’s not justice. That’s selective outrage.

You claim I just want to “give Hamas what it wants.” No. I want civilians not to be collectively punished for what Hamas wants. If your justice system mirrors Hamas’s disregard for civilian life, what exactly are you defending?

You ask what act I meant regarding perfidy. I was addressing your sweeping argument that Hamas’s use of civilian disguise voids protections for all civilians in Gaza. Under Geneva, perfidy strips protection for direct misuse, not for everyone under the same flag. That distinction matters if law matters.

You pivot from one debunked photo to dismissing mass graves altogether. The claim about mass graves under Israeli strikes has been documented by multiple field teams. Whether one photo showed Hamas burials doesn’t negate other burial sites verified by aid groups. You keep grasping for any flaw to reject the entire record.

You say pre-1948 land purchases weren’t occupation. Technically they weren’t under Israeli occupation – they were under British colonial rule. Purchases enforced through colonial frameworks of land tenure, eviction, and policing aren’t neutral market transactions. Legality imposed by empire isn’t justice to those displaced by it.

You ask what wasn’t published in the Camp David offers. Maps were selectively released, and core proposals remained off-record to shape public perception. Regardless, even leaked terms showed fragmented cantons, continued border control, and security vetoes that preserved Israeli supremacy while granting administrative autonomy. That’s why Arafat walked. It wasn’t dignity. It was subordination rebranded.

You say “stop funding terror” is the answer but admit you can’t do it. That’s not an answer. That’s resignation disguised as solution. You keep defining Palestinians purely as pawns of foreign funding rather than people with grievances rooted in decades of dispossession, blockade, and military rule. If you see them only as cannon fodder, your proposed “solutions” will always be about managing bodies, not resolving the conflict that produces them.

NHC

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Finally, you say “One dead person is a horrific tragedy. Let’s hope Israel wins ASAP so more people won’t die.” But if one death is too many, why cheer a strategy guaranteeing thousands more? That’s not hope. That’s just resignation wrapped in moral theater.

You're cheering a strategy that guarantees more 10/7s.

You are smart enough to know a false-dichotomy when you see it.

To make matters worse, you've already said that you think more 10/7s are inevitable as is, so this is about pushing it back. So how can you tell NoHolyCows that he is a cheering a strategy for more 10/7s, when you have conceded what Netanyahu's response is, isn't going to stop more 10/7s?

I don't believe they can be prevented. The goal is minimizing.

....and you are pissing on about NoHolyCows 'plan' when you admit the future violence is a fait accompli.

I think, in hindsight, Netanyahu's response to 10/7 has been a lot more cerebral than first understood, regarding Iran. Israel put into place a plan that took out Hezbollah and generally weakened the Houthis to a point where they were capable of then going on the offensive directly in Iran, with much less risk at home. That said, it has been over 18 months of attacks on Gaza, which doesn't appear to have been remotely as guided by intricate planning as the staged responses by the IDF on the other targets.

Nothing that Israel did created a situation where they could take the offensive to Iran.

Okay, you can go on thinking that the IDF and Mossad have no fucking clue what they are doing, but it seems quite obvious that the bombings and attack on Iran's nuclear targets was part of a very well coordinated plan that involved steps to cut the head off of Iran's remaining snakes to limit the targeting of Israel from multiple directions.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You say “It’s not retribution, it’s consequences.” That’s semantics, Lauren. When civilians are made to suffer to punish their rulers’ choices, that is collective retribution by definition – regardless of whether you prefer to call it “consequence.”

Calling it retribution doesn't make it so.

Harming civilians is not the objective. It is an unfortunate consequence of war.

It's like those idiots in Texas complaining about a flash flood after building in flash flood alley. There is no god smiting them, just the results of their actions.

On Deir Yassin, you pivot to uniforms and mistaken identity. Geneva bans perfidy precisely because it endangers civilians – but massacring villagers wasn’t shooting enemies in uniform. Women and children weren’t combatants misidentified. They were civilians targeted to terrorize. Your historical sanitizing doesn’t change what happened.

The Capture of Deir Yassin

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

You ask where Israel walked from talks. Camp David, Taba, Annapolis: each time final status talks ended with Israel continuing settlement expansions and refusing meaningful sovereignty. “Refusing concessions” while annexing land isn’t negotiation – it’s stalling to cement control.

Ah, now you change your tune. It's not "Israel walks", it's "Israel won't meet their demands." And by what means do you know their demands were reasonable??

You dismiss B’Tselem because you caught them “listing bodyguards as civilians.” Even if one report framed deaths questionably, it doesn’t erase their extensive documentation of settlement violence, dispossession, and administrative abuses. Your logic is selective deletion: discredit one fact to ignore the entire record.

It's not one report, I was simply using it to illustrate the sort of deception.

You say you prioritize combatant status over age because it’s “reality.” That’s an admission you’re comfortable labeling children as targets if it fits your threat frame. Geneva was written precisely to restrain that moral collapse.

No, you continue to think that Geneva says things it doesn't. Geneva says those under 18 shouldn't be combatants--says nothing about not treating them as combatants if they are.

You dismiss sniper killings as Hamas fakes because it’s “more logical.” Yet your only evidence is your assumptions about motive and logistics. No actual proof. Just narrative preference. Meanwhile, independent investigations, including Israeli human rights groups, have documented systematic targeting of medics and journalists. You ignore it because it shatters your moral certainty.

We have no proof either way. I'm simply looking for what makes sense.

You say Palestinians never offered peace. Hamas’s 2006 election was internationally recognized. Israel responded by blockading the Strip before Hamas fired a single rocket in government. As for ceasefire proposals, yes, they are flawed – but your refusal to even engage shows you don’t want peace terms. You want surrender.

And that's supposed to be meaningful??

Having an election is not the same thing as offering peace.

Finally, you justify sniper fire at protests by claiming Hamas uses civilians as shields. That’s the rhetoric of every power that fires into crowds: blame the bodies for being in the way.

NHC

It's not that they use them as shields, it's that they make them violate the border.

Calling it “just consequences” doesn’t erase the reality. When you knowingly inflict suffering on civilians to deter or punish a political choice, that is collective retribution under any moral or legal definition. Your flood analogy fails because floods aren’t sentient actors making choices. War policies are. Pretending inevitability absolves agency is moral cowardice in realist clothing.

Your Deir Yassin reply dodges the core fact: women, children, and elderly weren’t misidentified fighters – they were executed or expelled to terrorize surrounding villages. That’s why even Begin’s own allies condemned it as massacre. Geneva’s perfidy provisions are about false combatant identity, not slaughtering noncombatants to send a message.

No, I didn’t change my tune. Israel walked from meaningful negotiation repeatedly by continuing settlement expansions while refusing sovereignty terms Palestinians couldn’t possibly accept. When you negotiate with a gun in one hand and bulldozers rolling in the background, it isn’t bargaining. It’s extortion posing as diplomacy.

You say B’Tselem’s deception is systemic, not isolated. Fine – produce your comprehensive proof. Because their documentation includes decades of cross-verified legal records, witness testimonies, and photographic evidence. Dismissing the entire body of work because you dislike their conclusions is intellectual laziness, not rigor.

You claim Geneva permits treating under-18 combatants as lawful targets. Yes – if they directly participate in hostilities. But you extend that logic to treat all minors as suspect, voiding the entire principle of special protection for children in war. That isn’t legal nuance. That’s moral rot.

You claim sniper killings are fakes because it’s “more logical.” More logical for whom? For the families burying medics shot while evacuating wounded? For journalists shot despite clear markings? You’re just choosing the narrative that absolves your side without requiring evidence.

An election isn’t peace, but your argument ignored that Hamas’s electoral victory was immediately met with blockade before armed resistance resumed. You keep acting like Palestinians rejecting surrender terms is proof they don’t want peace. They’ve repeatedly proposed flawed ceasefires and diplomatic overtures. You refuse to engage because to you, any agreement requiring Israeli concessions is by definition illegitimate.

You claim border protesters weren’t human shields but violators. That doesn’t erase the reality that these were unarmed demonstrators overwhelmingly kept within fence zones and sniper range. Firing on them isn’t defending a border. It’s enforcing a siege with live ammunition – a policy choice, not an act of fate.

NHC

 

[Gospel]

No it isn't. My stance is built on harm reduction. Whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people is what we should do.

You supported siege tactics for the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. That is not remotely compatible with your "whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people" claim.

If we have zero tolerance for hostage taking we remove the incentives for taking hostages.

Israel is now in the process of making Palestinians think that its not worth it. And supporting Hamas is not worth it

I agree. Lets hope it works. However not all Palestinians need to be made to think this. Some already do.

Edit: Just looking into the west bank tells you this.

 

[Arctish]

When you keep pointing to Israeli actions to explain Hamas you are saying that 10/7 was justified and thus that all the horrors of it were justified.

Now you're being blatantly dishonest.

I have presented no argument that makes the case that the 10/7 terror attack was justified. I have said it was predictable that Hamas would use terrorism in an attempt to force Israel to make changes in policy. I said it was predictable that when Israel supported Hamas in order to weaken the PLO, that decision would eventually bite Israel in the ass. I have said it was predictable that Gazans would resent the State that built and maintains the walls surrounding them, the naval blockade that prevents aid from reaching them, and kills people on the street and children sleeping in their beds with impunity, and that the resentment makes it easier for Hamas to gather recruits.

If 10/7 is entirely because of what Israel did then it's inherently a justified action.

And when you say the response to 10/7 should be to remove the things you blame, you again are indirectly saying it's justified.

You "blame" Hamas but want no consequences, that's not really blame.

I told you long ago that I'm not going to pretend I think you're stupid or a little kid who wandered into a discussion the adults were having. And while I understand you are prone to either-or, black/white, yes/no thinking, you have been discussing issues with people who don't share your mindset long enough for you to at least grasp the concept of "better or worse".

It's not black/white, it's refusing to fall for the deceptions.

The deceptions you say happen but have no evidence actually occur?

Your claims are indistinguishable from paranoia, propaganda, and bullshit. And since you have a history of posting propaganda and bullshit, I'm going with 'not a mental illness, just a mindset' as the reason you make claims you don't even try to support.

There are things that can be done to make a situation better, and things that will make it worse. I believe we should always choose the "make things better" option.

Yes, we should be trying to make things better. The difference is that I look at it from the defense side rather than overall.

IOW, you look at it from one side only, and argue for what benefits your preferred group, not what will benefit everyone.

When you keep pointing to Israeli actions to explain Hamas you are saying that 10/7 was justified and thus that all the horrors of it were justified.

Now you're being blatantly dishonest.

I have presented no argument that makes the case that the 10/7 terror attack was justified. I have said it was predictable that Hamas would use terrorism in an attempt to force Israel to make changes in policy. I said it was predictable that when Israel supported Hamas in order to weaken the PLO, that decision would eventually bite Israel in the ass. I have said it was predictable that Gazans would resent the State that built and maintains the walls surrounding them, the naval blockade that prevents aid from reaching them, and kills people on the street and children sleeping in their beds with impunity, and that the resentment makes it easier for Hamas to gather recruits.

If 10/7 is entirely because of what Israel did then it's inherently a justified action.

And when you say the response to 10/7 should be to remove the things you blame, you again are indirectly saying it's justified.

You "blame" Hamas but want no consequences, that's not really blame.

I told you long ago that I'm not going to pretend I think you're stupid or a little kid who wandered into a discussion the adults were having. And while I understand you are prone to either-or, black/white, yes/no thinking, you have been discussing issues with people who don't share your mindset long enough for you to at least grasp the concept of "better or worse".

It's not black/white, it's refusing to fall for the deceptions.

Remember that time I said the important thing is respecting the human rights of everyone and you responded "So Jews aren't people?" because to you, respecting the human rights of Palestinians must come at the cost of not respecting the human rights of Jews, and for some reason you think Jews have a Right to permanently remove Palestinians from the parts of Palestine Jews want to be exclusively theirs? That's your either-or, black/white thinking at work.

There are things that can be done to make a situation better, and things that will make it worse. I believe we should always choose the "make things better" option.

Yes, we should be trying to make things better. The difference is that I look at it from the defense side rather than overall.

IOW, you look at it from one side only, and your preferred course of action isn't one that benefits everyone.

By trying to minimize overall deaths you inherently fall for the bad guy killing their people. You are saving Gazan lives now at the cost of Israeli lives down the road--and I do not believe a defender is required to sacrifice their people to spare the attacker.

And here's where you reveal the racism and bigotry inherent in your one-sided argument.

You believe in the inherent evil of certain ethnic and cultural groups. Your condemnation of future Palestinians for crimes against humanity you are certain they will commit is exactly the same kind of thinking behind the slaughter of Tutsi in Rwanda, why Serbs murdered Bosnians and Croats in Srebrenica, and why Nazis killed Jews all over Europe. That's the underpinning of your "dead or fled'" arguments.

I don't share your worldview, especially the part where you judge the worth of a person based on their ancestry or the culture in which they were raised. Fuck that bigoted, racist shit. The life of a Palestinian child is not worth less than that of an Israeli child just because he/she was born on the not-Israel side of the Green Line.

If 10/7 is entirely because of what Israel did (that's a mighty big "if"), the terrorism of 10/7 is not therefore justified. I don't believe terrorism is ever justifiable. It's murder and destruction aimed at the most vulnerable and least culpable members of a society. It makes things worse, usually for people who deserve that "worse" the least.

If it's entirely then Hamas did nothing wrong and thus it must be justified.

No.

This is an extremely important point, so please pay attention: one party to a conflict doing something heinous does not grant permission to others in that conflict to be just as heinous.

NoHolyCows has been patiently explaining this to you. I hope you learn something from them.

And honestly, Loren, you can take that "[y]ou "blame" Hamas but want no consequences" and stuff it right back up the orifice you pulled it from. Stop lying about my posts and my opinions.

That's not a rebuttal.

You say you blame Hamas but you propose to give them what they are after. And whose demands you think should be followed means a lot more than who you "blame".

Bullshit.

Hamas is not after being removed from power and having their agenda curtailed. It is not after free elections. And since you say Hamas does not like prosperity and I'm all for it for the people of Gaza, I think you're shitposting nonsense that even you don't believe.

 

[Gospel]

Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, like Black folks in America, ain’t divided by nature, they’ve been split by pressure. Outside forces made it that way. Just like Europe got countries with shared roots, Germany and Austria, Spain and Portugal, split by war, politics, and colonizers. Same blood, same memory, same struggle. They ain’t really divided, just holding convictions from different angles, some more extreme, yeah, but all from the same bucket. But white supremacists won’t see that. They don’t want to. Especially not the ones carrying a white supremacist torch 'cause their love for a Jewish wife is being used as a crusade with no real skin in the game.

Edit: I take the word 'love' back, clearly it means different things to different people. Let’s just call it what it is: a wife who’s fine with her husband having Girl Scout rope partners.

 

[Gospel]

Honestly, if you haven’t lived through anything close to what the people of Israel have endured, you should probably sit this one out. Loud opinions without lived experience are what put folks on the wrong side of history time and time again. And it’s painfully obvious around here, some of the trash reminiscent of white supremacist rhetoric being pushed in Israel’s name is more extreme than anything Israel officially puts forward. That says a lot.

 

[Gospel]

You’re not actually addressing the argument, just reframing it to avoid accountability. Saying I’m “using dead bodies as a metric” ignores the main issue: we’re talking about human lives, not propaganda tools. You’re so focused on how Hamas might exploit civilian deaths that you’ve dehumanized those civilians entirely. By your bullshit, the mere fact that a bad actor benefits from outrage means we should shut our eyes to the outrage itself. That’s moral cowardice, not clarity. It's the same excuse white supremacists use to dismiss police brutality 'Oh, they’re just stoking outrage to manipulate the system.' You’re not standing for principle; you're rationalizing indifference. When the moral cost of war becomes inconvenient, your response is to blame the people pointing it out. That’s not analysis. That’s just white supremacy garbage dressed up as strategy.

And you're still falling for Goodhart's Law. You see dead bodies, you blame Israel. Hamas wants you to blame Israel, they create more dead bodies. I'm not dehumanizing them, I'm recognizing why they came to die. I'm looking at how do we avoid the next one rather than in putting blame for the last one.

Nah, Loren, you’re not applying Goodhart’s Law, you’re weaponizing it to excuse atrocity. You’re talking like death is just a metric being gamed instead of what it actually is: a human cost. And that’s the problem. You're so worried about how Hamas might manipulate outrage that you’ve started pre-blaming the victims for their own deaths, as if their existence in a war zone is what 'made' them die, not the bombs dropped on them. You say you're trying to avoid the next one? Cool. But pretending that holding Israel accountable somehow causes more death is twisted. That’s like saying exposing police brutality leads to more shootings because the outrage 'incentivizes' the next one in your white supremacist world view.

 

[Gospel]

It’s hard to believe IIDB allows someone openly echoing white supremacist rhetoric to remain on their staff.

Still puzzled by this.

 

[Gospel]

@Loren Pechtel -- -- I see you are still posting but you seem to be unable to respond to my questions and comments. I have tried to correct several of your confusions, but as a minimum I would appreciate an answer to what seems like a simple question:

Let me repeat the question you are unwilling to answer:
Have you ever told us how you would feel if an Army of Muslims arrived in your town with superior force, and kicked you out of your home so they could live there?

We're still waiting.
.

 

[Gospel]

I'll save you the effort and answer for you in your confederate tongue

"Well, I’d sure as hell fight ‘em. Ain’t no foreign army got a right to take my land and my home. I don’t care how strong they are, it’s mine by blood, by history, by God, and I’d take up arms just like my ancestors did to defend what’s ours."

Funny how quickly y’all start talking about 'blood, land, and liberty' when you’re the one being kicked out, but when it happens to Palestinians, it’s just 'strategic deterrence.' If Muslims showed up in your town with tanks and kicked you off your land, you'd call it an invasion. But when it happens in reverse, you call it democracy. That ain’t principle, that’s supremacy. And no, that’s not what the State of Israel is about. You just project your white supremacist worldview onto it, so of course you see a parallel where there is none. Israel isn’t what you imagine it to be, and it sure as hell isn’t anything like you, Loren.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, like Black folks in America, ain’t divided by nature, they’ve been split by pressure. Outside forces made it that way. Just like Europe got countries with shared roots, Germany and Austria, Spain and Portugal, split by war, politics, and colonizers. Same blood, same memory, same struggle. They ain’t really divided, just holding convictions from different angles, some more extreme, yeah, but all from the same bucket. But white supremacists won’t see that. They don’t want to. Especially not the ones carrying a white supremacist torch 'cause their love for a Jewish wife is being used as a crusade with no real skin in the game.

Edit: I take the word 'love' back, clearly it means different things to different people. Let’s just call it what it is: a wife who’s fine with her husband having Girl Scout rope partners.

But the blacks of America don't have a predominantly black supremacy ideology and are willing to go to any lengths to terrorise whites into submission.

America is not surrounded by black nations with the same black supremacy ideology. Luckily those surrounding countries leaders mostly pays lip service to the ideology. But they still share it.

Its funny that you bring in the "white supremacy" talk about the only democratic and liberal country in the Middle-East.

What you call "white supremacy" I call "fighting to be able to exist att all".

Considering that islamofascism is so prevalent in the middle east I think its in exceptionally bad taste to allude to any supremacist tendencys among Israelis or their supporters. Its victim blaming imho

 

[DrZoidberg]

No it isn't. My stance is built on harm reduction. Whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people is what we should do.

You supported siege tactics for the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. That is not remotely compatible with your "whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people" claim.

If we have zero tolerance for hostage taking we remove the incentives for taking hostages.

Israel is now in the process of making Palestinians think that its not worth it. And supporting Hamas is not worth it

I agree. Lets hope it works. However not all Palestinians need to be made to think this. Some already do.

Edit: Just looking into the west bank tells you this.

Looking into what?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Pretty poignant now with the sharp rise of antisemitism. USA was a safe haven for Jews. Now Jews are attacked. Sweden was another safe haven for Jews. Now the Jews are leaving. For Israel.

For Jews, things can change fast for the worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It’s hard to believe IIDB allows someone openly echoing white supremacist rhetoric to remain on their staff.

Still puzzled by this.

It's not white supremacy rhetoric. That's just something you keep repeating. It has zero applicability to what you are talking about.

It's just ad hominem

 

[Gospel]

Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, like Black folks in America, ain’t divided by nature, they’ve been split by pressure. Outside forces made it that way. Just like Europe got countries with shared roots, Germany and Austria, Spain and Portugal, split by war, politics, and colonizers. Same blood, same memory, same struggle. They ain’t really divided, just holding convictions from different angles, some more extreme, yeah, but all from the same bucket. But white supremacists won’t see that. They don’t want to. Especially not the ones carrying a white supremacist torch 'cause their love for a Jewish wife is being used as a crusade with no real skin in the game.

Edit: I take the word 'love' back, clearly it means different things to different people. Let’s just call it what it is: a wife who’s fine with her husband having Girl Scout rope partners.

But the blacks of America don't have a predominantly black supremacy ideology and are willing to go to any lengths to terrorise whites into submission.

America is not surrounded by black nations with the same black supremacy ideology. Luckily those surrounding countries leaders mostly pays lip service to the ideology. But they still share it.

Its funny that you bring in the "white supremacy" talk about the only democratic and liberal country in the Middle-East.

What you call "white supremacy" I call "fighting to be able to exist att all".

Considering that islamofascism is so prevalent in the middle east I think its in exceptionally bad taste to allude to any supremacist tendencys among Israelis or their supporters. Its victim blaming imho

You’re out of your depth, Zoidberg , both on Black history and Israel. First of all, Black Americans absolutely lived under a hostile environment dominated by a white supremacist system , one that didn’t just 'discriminate,' but systematically enslaved, segregated, murdered, and erased them for generations. They were surrounded by institutions, policies, and people who saw their very existence as a threat , and still, they endured, organized, and fought back. Not to terrorize, but to survive and demand basic dignity (This is what the State of Israel is doing now, not that white supremist shit you're peddling).

So miss me with the idea that Black people can’t relate to Israel’s situation. In fact, it’s because we’ve been through it, surrounded by hostility, stripped of power, criminalized for resisting, that we see through the nonsense when someone like you pretends to be an expert on either struggle.

Let’s be real: you’re not defending Israel out of understanding, you’re using it to cosplay moral superiority while throwing around buzzwords like 'Islamofascism' and playing the victim. You’re not some principled voice of reason, you’re just another privileged white guy trying to earn credibility by forcing proximity to both Jewish and Palestinian communities, like a knockoff version of the 'I have Black friends' trope. Sit yo white supremacists ass down.

So here’s the deal: if you’re that far off the mark about what Black folks have lived through in America, maybe you should sit the Israel conversation out too. Because clearly, you don’t understand what it means to fight for your existence, you just like using white supremacist arguments at any given opportunity.

 

[Gospel]

No it isn't. My stance is built on harm reduction. Whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people is what we should do.

You supported siege tactics for the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. That is not remotely compatible with your "whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people" claim.

If we have zero tolerance for hostage taking we remove the incentives for taking hostages.

Israel is now in the process of making Palestinians think that its not worth it. And supporting Hamas is not worth it

I agree. Lets hope it works. However not all Palestinians need to be made to think this. Some already do.

Edit: Just looking into the west bank tells you this.

Looking into what?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Palestinians in the West Bank do recognize Israel as a state, and many acknowledge its right to self-defense. But let me guess: those Palestinians don’t fit in your narrative, do they? Because acknowledging them would disrupt your white supremacist orgy.

Edit: Let me help educate your dumb white supremacist ass. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have deep family and community ties. Denying that is like saying young Black men committing crimes in Black neighborhoods have no connection to the broader Black community they live in. Despite the physical and political divide, with Gaza under Hamas and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority, many families span both regions. These are not two separate peoples. They are one nation separated by checkpoints and politics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No it isn't. My stance is built on harm reduction. Whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people is what we should do.

You supported siege tactics for the release of the remaining Israeli hostages. That is not remotely compatible with your "whatever leads to the least amount of pain and misery for most people" claim.

If we have zero tolerance for hostage taking we remove the incentives for taking hostages.

Israel is now in the process of making Palestinians think that its not worth it. And supporting Hamas is not worth it

I agree. Lets hope it works. However not all Palestinians need to be made to think this. Some already do.

Edit: Just looking into the west bank tells you this.

Looking into what?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Palestinians in the West Bank do recognize Israel as a state, and many acknowledge its right to self-defense. But let me guess: those Palestinians don’t fit in your narrative, do they? Because acknowledging them would disrupt your white supremacist orgy.

Lol. No. I was merely asking you what you specifically were referring to. Now I know.

I think I am going to start calling you a Neo Nazi. No reason. But you have no reason to call me white supremacist.. so I might as well. Mr Hienrich Gospel