• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

To denote when two or more threads have been merged

Trucks waiting at Israeli checkpoints don’t unload themselves. You shift blame to UN funding gaps while ignoring the gates that remain closed. If aid convoys can’t move, the responsibility lies with the power controlling the border, not with the organization begging for passage.
Reality check! The trucks are on the Gaza side, Israel is no longer a factor. And if it's a funding gap why are they not saying something? No action, no statement, the only thing that makes sense is it's a manufactured shortage.

Acknowledging one atrocity doesn’t erase the dozens more documented by survivors, archives, and military logs. Treating Deir Yassin as a one-off excuses an entire pattern of collective violence that even Israeli veterans and U.N. reports have confirmed.
The point is your standard poster boy is nothing like what is claimed. And when the poster boys don't stand up to scrutiny in all probability the rest of it doesn't, either.

Dismissing every human rights report as “Hamas propaganda” is cynicism, not analysis. These organizations cross‐reference interviews, satellite imagery, medical records and still you brand it “nothing” to protect your narrative from inconvenient truths.
I've already shown you that this isn't true. You understood for about one post, then went right back to your faith.

The law doesn’t demand check-points at every alley—it demands extra precautions for minors, not treating them as free fire. Profiling every boy as a potential fighter abandons any claim to protect children; it simply codifies prejudice with a rifle.
Except that has nothing to do with reality. We are simply noting a pattern--the casualty figures show that people start as combatants at probably 16. Says nothing about any given individual, but means that you can't automatically figure anyone under 18 is a non-combatant. In the field it won't make any difference because the soldiers do not know the age of the person they're shooting at.

Almost nothing in a warzone arrives with a neatly stamped authenticity label—yet multiple independent teams have pieced together enough fragments, audio clues, geolocation data, and witness testimony to show a clear pattern: shots coming from positions only the IDF held. Dismissing every imperfect piece of evidence leaves you with zero insight—exactly what an unaccountable power wants.
Preaching your holy words doesn't make them true.

Ballistic matching in active combat is rare, yes—but you can still analyze fragment shape, crater depth, and entry angles to exclude certain weapon types. When those exclusions consistently point away from homemade rifles and toward military‐grade sniper rifles, that counts as evidence, even if it isn’t a lab-perfect fingerprint.
Which means nothing as nobody has said Hamas is using homemade rifles. Hamas has a mix of weapons, including those exactly the same as the IDF. Israel even supplied a batch as part of one of the fake peace deals, they were supposed to go to the police but actually went to Hamas.

“Rough” often still narrows suspects. Combine that with multiple camera angles, drone imagery, and signal intercepts, and you get a corridor of origin only the IDF occupied. Yes, it’s not pinpoint accuracy to the square meter—but it’s more than enough to show the shots didn’t come from scattered insurgents.
Except you don't. The angles aren't that precise and it's known there were combatants in some of the nearby buildings.
Identical calibers can come from wildly different barrels. Rifling marks, propellant residue, and cartridge dimensions vary by factory. Independent investigators routinely distinguish state‐issued ammo from trafficked batches. It’s never perfect, but pattern‐matching across dozens of incidents builds a credible case.
CSI is fiction.

And in this case Hamas delayed handing over the recovered bullet for examination--making it very likely it was a Hamas round. They're usually quick and cooperative when they think the evidence points to Israel.

One flawed study doesn’t erase the dozens of others—by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, UN fact-finders, even Israeli ex-soldiers in Breaking the Silence—all using different methods yet converging on the same conclusion. Tossing them one by one is a tactic to frustrate scrutiny, not a genuine critique of evidence.
It's not one flawed study. Every "study" that failed to notice the obvious problems has zero credibility. And the list of those that noticed the problem: <None>. (Israel pointed out the problem but do not at least publicly have a list of the dead.)

Modern infantry often embeds sniper teams within patrols—small, covert units that move, fire, and vanish. The lack of big‐scoped “sniper towers” doesn’t contradict witness accounts of precision shots from positions manned by trained marksmen. Denying the possibility outright is refusing to grapple with battlefield reality.
Except we have zero identification of any such sniper position. All we see is the hit.
If civilian deaths don’t factor into your moral ledger, whose do? Setting the bar at “better than someone else” means anything goes so long as the ratio looks decent. That’s not ethics—that’s arithmetic on graves.
The ratio looking good says Israel is observing proportionality. Neither of us has access to the sort of information needed to determine whether any given action was proper, but the overall numbers say the vast majority of actions must have been proper. If I roll 1000 dice and get a total of 2458 you can conclude what type of dice I was using.
 

If your filter rejects any testimony that doesn’t fit your preconceptions, you’re not seeking truth—you’re chasing a comfort zone. When dozens of independent organizations—from MSF to Israeli veterans—corroborate civilian harm, dismissing them wholesale because of a few flawed entries is intellectual cowardice. Real rigor demands you probe deeper, not slam the door on every inconvenient witness.
We've been over this many times. Continuing to repeat your holy words doesn't make them true.

And it's not that I reject the evidence because of a few failed entries. I reject the evidence because supposedly careful checking missed blatant errors.
When terms like “perfidy” or “collective punishment” are tossed aside as irrelevant, they lose their power—and so do the people they’re meant to protect. These aren’t buzzwords; they’re legal shields for innocent lives. Ignoring their meaning doesn’t make the crimes disappear—it makes you complicit in them.
I'm not tossing them aside, I'm saying you're claiming them when not true.

Claiming every atrocity is a Hamas setup doesn’t neutralize genuine evidence. If you have a specific strike fully debunked, lay out the proof. But endlessly repeating “it’s a frame” becomes a smokescreen for inaction. Real accountability demands you engage with the facts, not hide behind conspiracy.
Hamas makes far more garbage than we can hope to debunk. It's just when we keep seeing that it's wrong the logical conclusion is the next time around it's also wrong.

We now have another starving kid picture. That conveniently ignored that he's got a bunch of other medical issues. That conveniently ignored that his family appears normal. Why do we still not have any pictures of a starving baby without other medical issues??
 

I care just as much. Every child buried in rubble matters, whether their tragedy makes page one or page ten. Saying I “care less” about Gaza because other crises loom only excuses turning your back. True solidarity doesn’t pick and choose victims—it demands every life be worth our outrage and action, no matter the ZIP code.
But why do you not care more about 1,000 children starving to death in Sudan than one illusionary child in Gaza? (Illusionary because somehow Hamas can only find starving children that have serious medical issues.)
Ceasefires and monitored corridors aren’t trophies for Hamas—they’re lifelines for civilians too weak to dig themselves out from under collapsed homes. Dismissing them as “Hamas wins” confuses short-term military posturing with saving lives. As for GHF, money in a bank account can’t build safe routes or stop bombs—it can’t undo sieges or guarantee aid trucks pass unmolested. Grants don’t protect hospitals; escorts and agreements do. Fueling bureaucracy without securing passage leaves children starving under rubble, regardless of which ledger gets credited.
Ceasefire is the Hamas victory condition--they get to keep their hostages.

Monitored corridors--you still haven't addressed how badly the monitoring goes with Hezbollah. Fix that first before you demand more.

And are you even paying any attention to the situation? What are you saying about "money in a bank account" in regard to the GHF?? That one's so mixed up I don't even know what you got wrong.

The GHF isn't having any problem with deliveries. It's just having a problem with Hamas shooting people coming for the aid and Hamas torturing people who are distributing it.

Of course hostages matter—every captive deserves rescue. But treating civilian protection and hostage returns as mutually exclusive is a false choice. You don’t halt shelling only when every detainee is freed; you pause strikes where innocents gather so they survive long enough to see negotiations bear fruit. Refusing to press for pauses until hostages are home simply guarantees more people buried before the deal is struck.
You aren't even suggesting how to get them back. You are just saying that if Hamas kills enough people they're allowed to keep the hostages. Iran would be happy to make that deal.

Pinning global violence on “Islam” as a monolith is as lazy as blaming all wars on “Christianity.” Western Sahara’s repression may be under-reported, but that silence doesn’t justify starving Gaza’s civilians. Funding matters, yes, but so do local grievances, broken states, and everyday despair. You’re eager to highlight one proxy but blind to the politics that keep Gaza under siege. Poverty plus blockade—not simply outside cash—fuels desperation here.
It wasn't even about starving at all.

I'm pointing out Western Sahara as a situation with everything you claim causes the Hamas brutality--but it totally fails to do so.

When ambulances bearing bright Red Crescent emblems are struck; when medics are gunned down treating the wounded on open streets; when marked hospitals collapse under bunker-buster bombs—these aren’t ghost stories. Médecins Sans Frontières, UNRWA staff, and Israeli NGO investigators all document these hits. Denying that anyone’s targeting stretchers or triage tents because you haven’t liked the slide deck is refusing to see the blood-soaked facts staring you in the face.
When you keep up the Hamas propaganda you blind yourself to reality.
 

Trucks waiting at Israeli checkpoints don’t unload themselves. You shift blame to UN funding gaps while ignoring the gates that remain closed. If aid convoys can’t move, the responsibility lies with the power controlling the border, not with the organization begging for passage.
Reality check! The trucks are on the Gaza side, Israel is no longer a factor. And if it's a funding gap why are they not saying something? No action, no statement, the only thing that makes sense is it's a manufactured shortage.

Acknowledging one atrocity doesn’t erase the dozens more documented by survivors, archives, and military logs. Treating Deir Yassin as a one-off excuses an entire pattern of collective violence that even Israeli veterans and U.N. reports have confirmed.
The point is your standard poster boy is nothing like what is claimed. And when the poster boys don't stand up to scrutiny in all probability the rest of it doesn't, either.

Dismissing every human rights report as “Hamas propaganda” is cynicism, not analysis. These organizations cross‐reference interviews, satellite imagery, medical records and still you brand it “nothing” to protect your narrative from inconvenient truths.
I've already shown you that this isn't true. You understood for about one post, then went right back to your faith.

The law doesn’t demand check-points at every alley—it demands extra precautions for minors, not treating them as free fire. Profiling every boy as a potential fighter abandons any claim to protect children; it simply codifies prejudice with a rifle.
Except that has nothing to do with reality. We are simply noting a pattern--the casualty figures show that people start as combatants at probably 16. Says nothing about any given individual, but means that you can't automatically figure anyone under 18 is a non-combatant. In the field it won't make any difference because the soldiers do not know the age of the person they're shooting at.

Almost nothing in a warzone arrives with a neatly stamped authenticity label—yet multiple independent teams have pieced together enough fragments, audio clues, geolocation data, and witness testimony to show a clear pattern: shots coming from positions only the IDF held. Dismissing every imperfect piece of evidence leaves you with zero insight—exactly what an unaccountable power wants.
Preaching your holy words doesn't make them true.

Ballistic matching in active combat is rare, yes—but you can still analyze fragment shape, crater depth, and entry angles to exclude certain weapon types. When those exclusions consistently point away from homemade rifles and toward military‐grade sniper rifles, that counts as evidence, even if it isn’t a lab-perfect fingerprint.
Which means nothing as nobody has said Hamas is using homemade rifles. Hamas has a mix of weapons, including those exactly the same as the IDF. Israel even supplied a batch as part of one of the fake peace deals, they were supposed to go to the police but actually went to Hamas.

“Rough” often still narrows suspects. Combine that with multiple camera angles, drone imagery, and signal intercepts, and you get a corridor of origin only the IDF occupied. Yes, it’s not pinpoint accuracy to the square meter—but it’s more than enough to show the shots didn’t come from scattered insurgents.
Except you don't. The angles aren't that precise and it's known there were combatants in some of the nearby buildings.
Identical calibers can come from wildly different barrels. Rifling marks, propellant residue, and cartridge dimensions vary by factory. Independent investigators routinely distinguish state‐issued ammo from trafficked batches. It’s never perfect, but pattern‐matching across dozens of incidents builds a credible case.
CSI is fiction.

And in this case Hamas delayed handing over the recovered bullet for examination--making it very likely it was a Hamas round. They're usually quick and cooperative when they think the evidence points to Israel.

One flawed study doesn’t erase the dozens of others—by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, UN fact-finders, even Israeli ex-soldiers in Breaking the Silence—all using different methods yet converging on the same conclusion. Tossing them one by one is a tactic to frustrate scrutiny, not a genuine critique of evidence.
It's not one flawed study. Every "study" that failed to notice the obvious problems has zero credibility. And the list of those that noticed the problem: <None>. (Israel pointed out the problem but do not at least publicly have a list of the dead.)

Modern infantry often embeds sniper teams within patrols—small, covert units that move, fire, and vanish. The lack of big‐scoped “sniper towers” doesn’t contradict witness accounts of precision shots from positions manned by trained marksmen. Denying the possibility outright is refusing to grapple with battlefield reality.
Except we have zero identification of any such sniper position. All we see is the hit.
If civilian deaths don’t factor into your moral ledger, whose do? Setting the bar at “better than someone else” means anything goes so long as the ratio looks decent. That’s not ethics—that’s arithmetic on graves.
The ratio looking good says Israel is observing proportionality. Neither of us has access to the sort of information needed to determine whether any given action was proper, but the overall numbers say the vast majority of actions must have been proper. If I roll 1000 dice and get a total of 2458 you can conclude what type of dice I was using.

Even if the UN stocks are physically inside Gaza, they arrived there only because Israel opened the crossings, vetted the convoys, and granted security clearances. When aid sits idle behind closed gates—or under military “coordination”—the state with control over borders and checkpoints bears responsibility for any holdup, not the NGOs grumbling about pay rates.

Dismissing Deir Yassin’s hundreds of documented victims because you downplay one “poster boy” is like throwing away a forensic report because one fingerprint smudged. Multiple archives—from the International Committee of the Red Cross to Israeli kibbutz survivors—corroborate mass killings. Ignoring that vast record doesn’t erase it; it only exposes your refusal to reckon with inconvenient facts.

Faith has nothing to do with cross-referenced satellite imagery, hospital morgue logs, and dozens of on-the-ground interviews that human rights organizations compile under neutrality mandates. Rejecting every report until one suits your narrative isn’t healthy debate—it’s cynical cherry-picking dressed up as realism.

International law isn’t a census; it imposes an extra layer of caution for juveniles precisely because armies can’t age-verify on the fly. If “pattern” excuses turning 16-year-olds into fair targets, every child in a combat zone becomes suspect. The law demands restraint, identification efforts, and evacuation corridors—not a free-fire pass based on statistical generalities.

These “holy words” are treaty obligations ratified by nearly every country, enforced by international courts and military manuals worldwide. Dismissing them as sermonizing doesn’t change their legal force—it merely reveals your preference for unrestrained power over binding principle.

When calibers overlap, investigators turn to rifling patterns, propellant residue and cartridge markings—details Hamas can’t easily tamper with once recovered by neutral experts. Yes, perfect chain-of-custody is hard in war, but recurring rifts in those patterns, matched against known military stockpiles, still build a reliable picture far beyond idle speculation.

Independent geolocation doesn’t rely on a single angle: analysts overlay multiple videos, drone footage, and GPS-tagged photos to map trajectories. If insurgents truly held those rooftops, you’d see their flags, their weapons or radio traffic—but every credible study finds the firing points coincide with clearly marked IDF positions.

Obstructing evidence is a tacit confession. A belligerent force that truly believed it wasn’t at fault would facilitate every forensic test. Delays and secrecy about chains of custody only deepen the suspicion that the weapon came from a side unwilling to see the truth exposed.

When dozens of organizations—B’Tselem, HRW, UN fact-finders, Israeli veterans’ groups—each use distinct methodologies yet converge on the same patterns, you don’t dismiss them case by case; you confront the overwhelming weight of consistent findings. Rejecting each in turn because you spot a minor discrepancy is not rigor. It’s intellectual self-defense.

“Seeing the hit” is precisely why investigations start: the angle, the echo, the victim’s wounds all point to origin. Victims describe flashes from concrete observation posts, journalists record the time and place. Lack of visible “sniper towers” doesn’t preclude concealed rooftop teams. Denying every piece of corroborating testimony until a gun is handed to you personally amounts to willful blindness.

Averaging dice rolls doesn’t tell you if one throw landed on snake eyes or boxcars—you still need to inspect each throw. Proportionality isn’t a statistical trick; it’s a legal inquiry into each target’s necessity versus foreseeable civilian harm. Claiming a good overall ratio clears every individual tragedy is exactly the moral evasion this law forbids.

NHC
 

If your filter rejects any testimony that doesn’t fit your preconceptions, you’re not seeking truth—you’re chasing a comfort zone. When dozens of independent organizations—from MSF to Israeli veterans—corroborate civilian harm, dismissing them wholesale because of a few flawed entries is intellectual cowardice. Real rigor demands you probe deeper, not slam the door on every inconvenient witness.
We've been over this many times. Continuing to repeat your holy words doesn't make them true.

And it's not that I reject the evidence because of a few failed entries. I reject the evidence because supposedly careful checking missed blatant errors.
When terms like “perfidy” or “collective punishment” are tossed aside as irrelevant, they lose their power—and so do the people they’re meant to protect. These aren’t buzzwords; they’re legal shields for innocent lives. Ignoring their meaning doesn’t make the crimes disappear—it makes you complicit in them.
I'm not tossing them aside, I'm saying you're claiming them when not true.

Claiming every atrocity is a Hamas setup doesn’t neutralize genuine evidence. If you have a specific strike fully debunked, lay out the proof. But endlessly repeating “it’s a frame” becomes a smokescreen for inaction. Real accountability demands you engage with the facts, not hide behind conspiracy.
Hamas makes far more garbage than we can hope to debunk. It's just when we keep seeing that it's wrong the logical conclusion is the next time around it's also wrong.

We now have another starving kid picture. That conveniently ignored that he's got a bunch of other medical issues. That conveniently ignored that his family appears normal. Why do we still not have any pictures of a starving baby without other medical issues??

Pointing to isolated mistakes in massive, multi-stage investigations and then throwing out the entire report is willful denial, not rigor. Organizations like Médecins Sans Frontières and UN human rights fact-finders operate under strict protocols: they cross-check witness statements, hospital logs, satellite imagery and chain-of-custody data. When they correct an error, they publish the update—exactly what you accuse them of hiding. You’re free to flag individual glitches, but dismissing thousands of pages of corroborated fieldwork because of a handful of amended entries betrays a comfort zone, not a search for truth.

If your bar for “true” evidence is personal convenience, no testimony ever qualifies. You demand video-perfect proof for every civilian casualty, yet accept a military press release on face value. The law flips the burden: attackers must demonstrate military necessity before each strike, not force victims to prove innocence from beneath the rubble. Denying every claim until it meets an impossibly narrow definition isn’t caution—that’s evasion.

That’s a classic “guilt by association” trap. Independent investigators don’t take Hamas press releases as gospel—they verify thousands of data points from clinics, morgues, shelters and schools. If UNICEF, WHO, MSF and local health ministries all report skyrocketing rates of acute child malnutrition in Gaza, you don’t get to wipe that slate clean because Hamas airs an AI-generated image. Until you provide an alternative dataset showing otherwise, the responsible move is to assume those children are starving and act to save them, not to doubt them wholesale.

Expecting malnutrition to present like textbook isolation—no infections, no underlying disease—is fantasy. Real-world famines double-up: chronic illness deepens nutrient deficits; repeated infections sap strength. In Gaza hospitals, clinicians diagnose kwashiorkor and marasmus by a combination of clinical signs, mid-upper-arm circumference measurements and blood tests—none of which require Instagram-worthy backdrops. If you think a single family’s appearance disproves an entire public-health emergency, you’re demanding a photographic standard no humanitarian crisis can ever meet. The real evidence lies in weekly clinic bulletins showing thousands of children admitted with acute malnutrition. Dismissing that because one photo “isn’t pure enough” isn’t skepticism—it’s a shield against responsibility.

NHC
 

Dismissing every school strike as “fog of war” doesn’t erase the fact that classrooms fell silent and children died. International law isn’t paper perfection—it’s a set of minimum duties: verify military use before bombing, warn civilians, take precautions. Claiming a symmetrical body‐count with Hamas makes no difference when those bodies lie in ruined schoolyards. You can’t erase the law by calling it outdated.
Reality check. Where did I say anything about school strikes being fog of war? Israel never denied hitting the school, they said they hit Hamas. And by the time we quit seeing anything new the number of people Hamas claimed died was an almost perfect match for the number of Hamas martyrs. And you see "school" and baa "civilian".
Pointing at past rulers doesn’t absolve today’s occupier of choices it makes now. Israel wields airpower, enforces the blockade, expands settlements—those are present actions, not historical footnotes. Shifting blame to someone else is a classic dodge: the people starving under your watch aren’t responsible for writing your rules.
Let's review this little bit.

1) You pointed to the refugee camps as causing the current situation.
2) I pointed to Egypt and Jordan.
3) You didn't understand.
4) I pointed out that the camps were the creation of those countries, that Israel was not involved.

And now you are shifting from pointing to the past to pointing to the present.

Why does this look very much like you simply want to blame Israel and don't care about the truth?

International law anticipates exactly this kind of abuse. Even when symbols are compromised, attackers still must verify targets, provide warnings, and err on the side of civilian life. “Behavior” always cuts two ways—patients begging in corridors aren’t combatants. You can’t flip the burden onto the wounded to prove their innocence.
Which doesn't address the fact that symbols lose their meaning.

Punishment isn’t defined by a label you choose—it’s the outcome you impose. When you choke off food, water, medicine and tell two million people their survival hangs on surrender, that is collective punishment under any moral or legal definition. You don’t get to demand a secret memo of intent—children starving in the streets are proof enough.
Punishment is intent. Suffering doesn't prove intent.
Whether trucks stall at a checkpoint or park inside Rafah, every inch of Gaza’s supply chain runs on permits Israel grants, routes it secures, and fees it dictates. If drivers refuse to move without UN wages, that friction exists only because the siege made aid a bargaining chip. Excusing NGO budgets as the culprit is ignoring the siege architecture that creates the logjam.
The trucks aren't stalled at a checkpoint. They're stalled because Hamas wants the people to suffer.
Mocking my language won’t make UNICEF reports, WHO alerts, and on‐the‐ground NGO surveys vanish. If you filter every source that shows malnutrition or mass graves, you’re not practicing skepticism—you’re wearing blinders. Real scrutiny weighs all evidence, not just the PowerPoint that flatters your worldview.
Getting a whole bunch of people to baa for Hamas doesn't make it true.
I’ve called for humanitarian pauses, protected corridors, international monitors and third‐party guarantors—all tools proven in past conflicts to secure civilian safety and open space for negotiations. Starvation and bombing haven’t freed a single hostage; they only bury more children. If you measure success in misery, you’ll never find a path that returns the captives alive.

NHC
You've called for Israel to abandon the hostages. Thus you are calling for more 10/7s.
 
Are these Gazan adults keeping the food for themselves? Or maybe these kids have health conditions unrelated to food availability? Gaza (and Palestinians in general) have a high rate of consanguinity, and therefore genetic conditions are not exactly rare. Some genetic conditions affect how food is absorbed or metabolized.
The Times has quietly admitted to not having the whole story.

But you don't even need that. Look at that curved spine--that's not caused by starvation.
 

I care just as much. Every child buried in rubble matters, whether their tragedy makes page one or page ten. Saying I “care less” about Gaza because other crises loom only excuses turning your back. True solidarity doesn’t pick and choose victims—it demands every life be worth our outrage and action, no matter the ZIP code.
But why do you not care more about 1,000 children starving to death in Sudan than one illusionary child in Gaza? (Illusionary because somehow Hamas can only find starving children that have serious medical issues.)
Ceasefires and monitored corridors aren’t trophies for Hamas—they’re lifelines for civilians too weak to dig themselves out from under collapsed homes. Dismissing them as “Hamas wins” confuses short-term military posturing with saving lives. As for GHF, money in a bank account can’t build safe routes or stop bombs—it can’t undo sieges or guarantee aid trucks pass unmolested. Grants don’t protect hospitals; escorts and agreements do. Fueling bureaucracy without securing passage leaves children starving under rubble, regardless of which ledger gets credited.
Ceasefire is the Hamas victory condition--they get to keep their hostages.

Monitored corridors--you still haven't addressed how badly the monitoring goes with Hezbollah. Fix that first before you demand more.

And are you even paying any attention to the situation? What are you saying about "money in a bank account" in regard to the GHF?? That one's so mixed up I don't even know what you got wrong.

The GHF isn't having any problem with deliveries. It's just having a problem with Hamas shooting people coming for the aid and Hamas torturing people who are distributing it.

Of course hostages matter—every captive deserves rescue. But treating civilian protection and hostage returns as mutually exclusive is a false choice. You don’t halt shelling only when every detainee is freed; you pause strikes where innocents gather so they survive long enough to see negotiations bear fruit. Refusing to press for pauses until hostages are home simply guarantees more people buried before the deal is struck.
You aren't even suggesting how to get them back. You are just saying that if Hamas kills enough people they're allowed to keep the hostages. Iran would be happy to make that deal.

Pinning global violence on “Islam” as a monolith is as lazy as blaming all wars on “Christianity.” Western Sahara’s repression may be under-reported, but that silence doesn’t justify starving Gaza’s civilians. Funding matters, yes, but so do local grievances, broken states, and everyday despair. You’re eager to highlight one proxy but blind to the politics that keep Gaza under siege. Poverty plus blockade—not simply outside cash—fuels desperation here.
It wasn't even about starving at all.

I'm pointing out Western Sahara as a situation with everything you claim causes the Hamas brutality--but it totally fails to do so.

When ambulances bearing bright Red Crescent emblems are struck; when medics are gunned down treating the wounded on open streets; when marked hospitals collapse under bunker-buster bombs—these aren’t ghost stories. Médecins Sans Frontières, UNRWA staff, and Israeli NGO investigators all document these hits. Denying that anyone’s targeting stretchers or triage tents because you haven’t liked the slide deck is refusing to see the blood-soaked facts staring you in the face.
When you keep up the Hamas propaganda you blind yourself to reality.

I care about every starving child, regardless of geography. The difference here is your refusal to accept Gaza’s real public-health data because you haven’t found a “pure” photo. In reality, weekly malnutrition surveys by UNICEF and the World Health Organization report acute malnutrition rates in northern Gaza above emergency thresholds—independent of any one image. Dismissing an entire crisis because one child had comorbidities ignores the hard clinic records, growth-chart measurements, and thousands of admissions for kwashiorkor. If you demand perfect optics instead of weighing epidemiological evidence, you’re choosing denial over action.

Temporary ceasefires tied to incremental hostage releases have saved lives in Yemen, Sudan, and Ukraine—allowing civilians to evacuate and aid to flow. Yes, Hamas sought to cement its leverage, but you don’t withhold life-saving pauses from civilians because the armed group abuses them; you strengthen monitoring and integrate neutral guarantors. UNIFIL’s constraints in Lebanon reflect under-resourcing, not the principle of oversight—Gaza could host a more robust, digitally linked monitoring mission with international troops and real-time reporting.

As for the Global Humanitarian Fund, it’s a pooled-cash mechanism that disburses money to vetted local NGOs. Its role isn’t driving trucks—it’s funding credible operators to procure and distribute supplies. Securing bank accounts doesn’t unload aid into starving hands without safe corridors and armed escorts. If Hamas fires on aid recipients, that crime falls squarely on them—but it doesn’t negate the need for ceasefires, stronger monitors, and direct support to local relief networks.

I’m advocating precisely for step-by-step, ceasefire-linked exchanges: international intermediaries (Qatar, Switzerland) supervise each release; the ICRC issues Red Cross-branded safe-passage corridors to known holding sites; neutral observers verify hand-overs before strikes resume. Those mechanisms have over 20 years of precedent in conflicts like Colombia and the Philippines. If Iran or Hamas sabotage them, they bear the blame—not the civilians caught in the carnage. Suggesting hostage-return and civilian protection are mutually exclusive is a false binary you invented to justify endless bombardment.

Western Sahara’s repression differs fundamentally: it lacks the sustained aerial bombardment, tight naval and land siege, and near-complete blockade Gaza endures. The absence of insurgency there doesn’t disprove the link between relentless military pressure and radicalization. By cherry-picking one exception, you dismiss the overwhelming historical record: communities under siege, cut off from food, water, electricity and medical care—like Gaza—routinely produce desperate, often violent, resistance movements. You can’t conflate distinct contexts to erase Gaza’s lived reality.

Projecting “Hamas propaganda” onto every independent report is your defense mechanism. You brand UN agencies, MSF, HRW and Israeli veterans’ testimonies as “propaganda,” yet accept IDF statements without question. That inversion—dismissing whoever doesn’t confirm your bias while embracing whatever does—is the true blindness. Reality demands weighing all credible evidence, not discarding any source that makes you uncomfortable. If you refuse to see Gaza’s suffering unless it fits your preconceptions, you’re not defending truth—you’re running from it.

NHC
 

Dismissing every school strike as “fog of war” doesn’t erase the fact that classrooms fell silent and children died. International law isn’t paper perfection—it’s a set of minimum duties: verify military use before bombing, warn civilians, take precautions. Claiming a symmetrical body‐count with Hamas makes no difference when those bodies lie in ruined schoolyards. You can’t erase the law by calling it outdated.
Reality check. Where did I say anything about school strikes being fog of war? Israel never denied hitting the school, they said they hit Hamas. And by the time we quit seeing anything new the number of people Hamas claimed died was an almost perfect match for the number of Hamas martyrs. And you see "school" and baa "civilian".
Pointing at past rulers doesn’t absolve today’s occupier of choices it makes now. Israel wields airpower, enforces the blockade, expands settlements—those are present actions, not historical footnotes. Shifting blame to someone else is a classic dodge: the people starving under your watch aren’t responsible for writing your rules.
Let's review this little bit.

1) You pointed to the refugee camps as causing the current situation.
2) I pointed to Egypt and Jordan.
3) You didn't understand.
4) I pointed out that the camps were the creation of those countries, that Israel was not involved.

And now you are shifting from pointing to the past to pointing to the present.

Why does this look very much like you simply want to blame Israel and don't care about the truth?

International law anticipates exactly this kind of abuse. Even when symbols are compromised, attackers still must verify targets, provide warnings, and err on the side of civilian life. “Behavior” always cuts two ways—patients begging in corridors aren’t combatants. You can’t flip the burden onto the wounded to prove their innocence.
Which doesn't address the fact that symbols lose their meaning.

Punishment isn’t defined by a label you choose—it’s the outcome you impose. When you choke off food, water, medicine and tell two million people their survival hangs on surrender, that is collective punishment under any moral or legal definition. You don’t get to demand a secret memo of intent—children starving in the streets are proof enough.
Punishment is intent. Suffering doesn't prove intent.
Whether trucks stall at a checkpoint or park inside Rafah, every inch of Gaza’s supply chain runs on permits Israel grants, routes it secures, and fees it dictates. If drivers refuse to move without UN wages, that friction exists only because the siege made aid a bargaining chip. Excusing NGO budgets as the culprit is ignoring the siege architecture that creates the logjam.
The trucks aren't stalled at a checkpoint. They're stalled because Hamas wants the people to suffer.
Mocking my language won’t make UNICEF reports, WHO alerts, and on‐the‐ground NGO surveys vanish. If you filter every source that shows malnutrition or mass graves, you’re not practicing skepticism—you’re wearing blinders. Real scrutiny weighs all evidence, not just the PowerPoint that flatters your worldview.
Getting a whole bunch of people to baa for Hamas doesn't make it true.
I’ve called for humanitarian pauses, protected corridors, international monitors and third‐party guarantors—all tools proven in past conflicts to secure civilian safety and open space for negotiations. Starvation and bombing haven’t freed a single hostage; they only bury more children. If you measure success in misery, you’ll never find a path that returns the captives alive.

NHC
You've called for Israel to abandon the hostages. Thus you are calling for more 10/7s.

International humanitarian law isn’t fooled by statistical symmetry. Even if the body count matches Hamas’s own “martyr” list, that doesn’t transform a school full of children into a valid military objective. Every attack on a protected site—school, mosque, hospital—must be preceded by verification of bona fide military use, advance warning, and feasible precautions to spare civilians. You cannot substitute Hamas’s casualty roster for the legal steps that prevent atrocities. Matching numbers can show propaganda discipline, not lawful conduct.

Assigning partial blame to Egypt and Jordan for the original camps doesn’t absolve Israel of six decades of blockades, settlement expansion, and air campaigns that have trapped and decimated civilians under its watch. Historical context matters—but so do current decisions. Holding Israel to account for today’s policies isn’t “blame,” it’s demand for consistency: those who wield power right now bear responsibility for its consequences, regardless of how the camps began.

The misuse of an emblem by armed groups doesn’t erase its legal protection. Under Protocol I (Articles 12–13) and customary international law, a hospital or ambulance remains protected unless it “is used to commit acts harmful to the enemy”—and even then, only after due warning and reasonable time to comply. You cannot simply declare every Red Crescent truck a free‐fire target because Hamas occasionally hides weapons nearby. The burden stays on attackers to verify and to minimize harm, not on civilians to prove innocence.

Intent can be inferred from policy design and predictable outcomes. When a military deliberately cuts off food, water, electricity, and medicine to two million people, knowing full well that only a tiny fraction of aid ever reaches fighters, that constitutes intent to coerce the civilian population—Article 33 of Geneva IV explicitly prohibits “pillaging” and “collective penalties.” Depriving an entire community of subsistence to pressure its leaders meets the threshold of collective punishment, regardless of whether a secret memo spells it out in plain words.

Every mile these trucks move—through Israeli‐imposed permits, convoy schedules, security screenings—is controlled by Israel. Even once on Gaza soil, UN agencies must secure daily door‐to‐door clearances from the IDF. If Hamas exacts fees or intimidates drivers, that is reprehensible—but it cannot explain why, after formal handover, convoys still cannot distribute freely. The choke‐points are part of a siege regime designed by Israel, not a spontaneous Hamas tactic.

When Médecins Sans Frontières documents malnutrition in clinics, the WHO publishes daily health alerts, UNRWA reports displacement figures, B’Tselem maps rubble, and Israeli reservists testify under oath—these are independent, cross‐verified sources, not an echo chamber. Dismissing every humanitarian actor as “Hamas apologists” isn’t skepticism; it’s intellectual dishonesty. Rigorous analysis weighs the convergence of dozens of methods, not the absence of a single video you find “pure.”

I have insisted on integrated approaches—humanitarian pauses tied to incremental hostage releases, neutral monitors overseeing each exchange, safe‐passage corridors marked by the ICRC—exactly the mechanisms that reunited captives in past conflicts (e.g., Colombia, Sudan, Ukraine). Civilian protection and hostage freedom are not rivals; they reinforce each other. Saying “protect civilians or free hostages” creates a false binary that only prolongs both tragedies.

NHC
 
For anyone here who may show signs of bigotry towards Arabs or Muslims, I found a British doctor who substantiates the claims regarding Israel deliberating shooting innocent civilians including children and denying them aide. Although I did read this morning that due to pressure from many countries, Israel claims they will send more aide. We shall see.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/british-surgeon-gaza-palestinians-shot-aid-sites-game-3825359
There's little doubt civilians are being shot near the aid sites.

What has not been established is that it's Israel doing the shooting.

Whenever you see things like this, consider whether the evidence excludes Hamas being the shooter. Hint: it almost never does.
 
Maynard said the pattern suggested a deliberate targeting, “almost like a game they’re playing”.
And, let me guess, they are using their blood for matzo balls too?
Color me skeptical of these claims. They read like modern day blood libel.
This is the first I've heard of targeting. But the shootings are real--Hamas shoots, everybody blames the Jews so Hamas shoots even more.
 
It is easy to criticize genocide I'll do it all day every day. Go fuck yourself.

Calling it genocide is antisemitic racist clap trap. Enjoy siding with evil
Israel is not Jews. Criticising Israel isn't criticising Jews. It isn't anti-semitic to criticise Isreal. It isn't even anti semitic to critisice Jews if they deserve it. Calling a spade a spade is adhering to reality. Enjoy fantasy.
But it almost always is a way to pretend not to be antisemitic.

Just look at the recent flap with the Vueling flight where they tossed off about 50 "Israeli brats"--that were French. And given the repeatedly changing explanations (which contradict the stories from other passengers) it's obviously antisemitism. And Spain seems to be siding with the airline.
 
I think Hamas carries a lot of blame for being intransigent. I think Hamas still thinks they have enough leverage to effect the release of thousands of prisoners, including such bad seeds as Abdullah Barghouti.
Hardened terrorists that Hamas demands in exchange of hostages
I don't think Hamas is really being given a choice here.

The goal of Hamas is to make Gazans suffer as much as possible

More than anything Hamas is fighting a PR war, and doing everything they can to force Iarael to accidentally hurt civilians

Too bad there's so many gullible idiots buying it. That’s what encourages Hanas to keep going

Hamas has made it clear they think every Palestinian is expendable. Its so bizarre they still have any support
 
It is easy to criticize genocide I'll do it all day every day. Go fuck yourself.

Calling it genocide is antisemitic racist clap trap. Enjoy siding with evil
Israel is not Jews. Criticizing Israel isn't criticizing Jews. It isn't antisemitic to criticize Israel. It isn't even antisemitic to criticize Jews if they deserve it. Calling a spade a spade is adhering to reality. Enjoy fantasy.
But it almost always is a way to pretend not to be antisemitic.

Just look at the recent flap with the Vueling flight where they tossed off about 50 "Israeli brats"--that were French. And given the repeatedly changing explanations (which contradict the stories from other passengers) it's obviously antisemitism. And Spain seems to be siding with the airline.
I am accusing Israel of committing genocide. I'm not accusing Jews of committing genocide. Which if you think about it is the only thing that makes sense seeing as how even though the leaders of Israel are Jewish, Jews are not in charge of Israel. Zoidberg (and maybe you?) are willingly committing a simplistic category error in order to smear critics of Israel in an attempted ad-hominem deflection. I can make you a Venn diagram if you still don't understand these things.

I don't know anything about this alleged Vueling anecdote. Is your media bias is showing?
 
It is easy to criticize genocide I'll do it all day every day. Go fuck yourself.

Calling it genocide is antisemitic racist clap trap. Enjoy siding with evil
Israel is not Jews. Criticizing Israel isn't criticizing Jews. It isn't antisemitic to criticize Israel. It isn't even antisemitic to criticize Jews if they deserve it. Calling a spade a spade is adhering to reality. Enjoy fantasy.
But it almost always is a way to pretend not to be antisemitic.

Just look at the recent flap with the Vueling flight where they tossed off about 50 "Israeli brats"--that were French. And given the repeatedly changing explanations (which contradict the stories from other passengers) it's obviously antisemitism. And Spain seems to be siding with the airline.
I am accusing Israel of committing genocide. I'm not accusing Jews of committing genocide. Which if you think about it is the only thing that makes sense seeing as how even though the leaders of Israel are Jewish, Jews are not in charge of Israel. Zoidberg (and maybe you?) are willingly committing a simplistic category error in order to smear critics of Israel in an attempted ad-hominem deflection. I can make you a Venn diagram if you still don't understand these things.

I don't know anything about this alleged Vueling anecdote. Is your media bias is showing?

Your support for Hamas is despicable.

Good luck trying to twist reality into it being something else. I hope you one day find a way to live with your shame
 
It is easy to criticize genocide I'll do it all day every day. Go fuck yourself.

Calling it genocide is antisemitic racist clap trap. Enjoy siding with evil
Israel is not Jews. Criticizing Israel isn't criticizing Jews. It isn't antisemitic to criticize Israel. It isn't even antisemitic to criticize Jews if they deserve it. Calling a spade a spade is adhering to reality. Enjoy fantasy.
But it almost always is a way to pretend not to be antisemitic.

Just look at the recent flap with the Vueling flight where they tossed off about 50 "Israeli brats"--that were French. And given the repeatedly changing explanations (which contradict the stories from other passengers) it's obviously antisemitism. And Spain seems to be siding with the airline.
I am accusing Israel of committing genocide. I'm not accusing Jews of committing genocide. Which if you think about it is the only thing that makes sense seeing as how even though the leaders of Israel are Jewish, Jews are not in charge of Israel. Zoidberg (and maybe you?) are willingly committing a simplistic category error in order to smear critics of Israel in an attempted ad-hominem deflection. I can make you a Venn diagram if you still don't understand these things.

I don't know anything about this alleged Vueling anecdote. Is your media bias is showing?

Your support for Hamas is despicable.

Good luck trying to twist reality into it being something else. I hope you one day find a way to live with your shame
Your false accusations and deflections are despicable. Acknowledging true facts about reality is the sign of a rational thinker. Denying them is a sign of the deluded or insane. Go suck on some more fantasy.
 
It is easy to criticize genocide I'll do it all day every day. Go fuck yourself.

Calling it genocide is antisemitic racist clap trap. Enjoy siding with evil
Israel is not Jews. Criticizing Israel isn't criticizing Jews. It isn't antisemitic to criticize Israel. It isn't even antisemitic to criticize Jews if they deserve it. Calling a spade a spade is adhering to reality. Enjoy fantasy.
But it almost always is a way to pretend not to be antisemitic.

Just look at the recent flap with the Vueling flight where they tossed off about 50 "Israeli brats"--that were French. And given the repeatedly changing explanations (which contradict the stories from other passengers) it's obviously antisemitism. And Spain seems to be siding with the airline.
I am accusing Israel of committing genocide. I'm not accusing Jews of committing genocide. Which if you think about it is the only thing that makes sense seeing as how even though the leaders of Israel are Jewish, Jews are not in charge of Israel. Zoidberg (and maybe you?) are willingly committing a simplistic category error in order to smear critics of Israel in an attempted ad-hominem deflection. I can make you a Venn diagram if you still don't understand these things.

I don't know anything about this alleged Vueling anecdote. Is your media bias is showing?

Your support for Hamas is despicable.

Good luck trying to twist reality into it being something else. I hope you one day find a way to live with your shame
Your false accusations that anyone here supports Hamas are despicable. You are despicable.
 
I wonder if those who support the genocidal actions of Israel are ever going to stop accusing others of supporting Hamas. Nobody here is supporting Hamas. But, I do think when Israel continues to kill innocent civilians and deny them basic aide like food, water and medical care, they are encouraging more people to join terrorist groups like Hamas out of anger and frustration.

Netanyahu is out of his fucking mind. He is not only destroying Gaza, he is destroying any respect the rest of the world once had for Israel. I have seen many Jewish intellectuals on news shows or in opinion pieces in various news sources, strongly criticizing Israel over the last few weeks. I think they understand the situation.
 
It is easy to criticize genocide I'll do it all day every day. Go fuck yourself.

Calling it genocide is antisemitic racist clap trap. Enjoy siding with evil

It has been my experience that WHENEVER anyone says something is "antisemitic" they are lying and they know it.
My experience is the exact opposite, except that it can be hard to distinguish between those who are truly antisemitic and those who are simply duped.
 
Back
Top Bottom