Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

Nevermind the total lack of effort and sheer indifference of Netanyahu's regime in retrieving the hostages taken on Oct 7 three fucking years ago. That they prioritise genocide, collective punishment and other fun war crimes over that is telling in and of itself.

What are you talking about? Are you upset with Netanyahu for not paying the ransom Hamas wanted? If they did that, that's a guarantee there will be another attack as soon as Hamas can.

I can't see how the Netanyahu regime could possibly have done this any faster? So I really don't understand what you are talking about?

 

[laughing dog]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

That’s something racists keep saying as they signal fail to convince others.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

 

[DrZoidberg]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

We've been over this a million times. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Hamas hides behind their own civilians. Israels only viable option was and is to attack. So that's what they're doing. Hamas is responsible for the Palestinian deaths.

With that context if you blame Israel for the death of the Palestinian civilians I'm going to think you're an antisemite.

Holding Jews up to impossibly high standards while letting Hamas' 7/10 attack slide is just double standards, and racism, I think.

Gospel called my defence of Jews "white knighting". That may be. But I will continue calling out racism on this forum. I think its the decent thing to do. I also think its important. Racism festers if decent people stand by and do nothing. So I am doing my little bit. Sorry, not sorry.

 

[laughing dog]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

We've been over this a million times. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Hamas hides behind their own civilians. Israels only viable option was and is to attack.

True. But indiscriminate bombing is not the only option.

To use “they attacked us, so we had no ithet viable choice but to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in an impossible goal” is racist. Calling out racists is a the decent thing to do.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

We've been over this a million times. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Hamas hides behind their own civilians. Israels only viable option was and is to attack.

True. But indiscriminate bombing is not the only option.

To use “they attacked us, so we had no ithet viable choice but to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in an impossible goal” is racist. Calling out racists is a the decent thing to do.

What I am hearing though is no one has a right to complain unless they personally can come up with a better alternative.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

We've been over this a million times. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Hamas hides behind their own civilians. Israels only viable option was and is to attack.

True. But indiscriminate bombing is not the only option.

To use “they attacked us, so we had no ithet viable choice but to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in an impossible goal” is racist. Calling out racists is a the decent thing to do.

Obviously its not indiscriminate. If the IDF wasn't making an effort to avoid unnecessary civilian casualuties this war would have been over in a week.

But you keep spreading Hamas propaganda and convince yourself you're not a tool of evil. Enjoy

 

[laughing dog]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

We've been over this a million times. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Hamas hides behind their own civilians. Israels only viable option was and is to attack.

True. But indiscriminate bombing is not the only option.

To use “they attacked us, so we had no ithet viable choice but to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in an impossible goal” is racist. Calling out racists is a the decent thing to do.

Obviously its not indiscriminate. If the IDF wasn't making an effort to avoid unnecessary civilian casualuties this war would have been over in a week.

That’s not what indiscriminate means.

But you keep spreading Hamas propaganda and convince yourself you're not a tool of evil. Enjoy

Another confession masquerading as an accusation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

We've been over this a million times. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Hamas hides behind their own civilians. Israels only viable option was and is to attack.

True. But indiscriminate bombing is not the only option.

To use “they attacked us, so we had no ithet viable choice but to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in an impossible goal” is racist. Calling out racists is a the decent thing to do.

Obviously its not indiscriminate. If the IDF wasn't making an effort to avoid unnecessary civilian casualuties this war would have been over in a week.

That’s not what indiscriminate means.

What did you mean then?

"indiscriminate
/ˌɪndɪˈskrɪmɪnət/
Indiscriminate is an adjective that means done without careful thought, judgment, or selection, often resulting in random harm or confusion."

Do you regret using that word?

But you keep spreading Hamas propaganda and convince yourself you're not a tool of evil. Enjoy

Another confession masquerading as an accusation.

Masquerading? I am accusing you of spreading Hamas propaganda. I didn't wrap it in gentle packing.

Do you remember the famine in Gaza? Have you ever wondered what happened about that? It was even confirmed by the UN. Complete bullshit.

People streamed from open and fully stocked cafés in Gaza while the "famine" was ongoing.

 

[laughing dog]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

That's something antisemites keep saying. These people are racist scum and can be ignored IMHO. I don't care what racists think about anything.

Well, Based on this particular exchange of posts it appears that this is what you are saying. So perhaps you want to clarify your meaning? Especially this part: “If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise [sic] in utopianism”

We've been over this a million times. Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Hamas hides behind their own civilians. Israels only viable option was and is to attack.

True. But indiscriminate bombing is not the only option.

To use “they attacked us, so we had no ithet viable choice but to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians in an impossible goal” is racist. Calling out racists is a the decent thing to do.

Obviously its not indiscriminate. If the IDF wasn't making an effort to avoid unnecessary civilian casualuties this war would have been over in a week.

That’s not what indiscriminate means.

What did you mean then?

"indiscriminate
/ˌɪndɪˈskrɪmɪnət/
Indiscriminate is an adjective that means done without careful thought, judgment, or selection, often resulting in random harm or confusion."

Do you regret using that word?

No:

But you keep spreading Hamas propaganda and convince yourself you're not a tool of evil. Enjoy

Another confession masquerading as an accusation.

Masquerading? I am accusing you of spreading Hamas propaganda. I didn't wrap it in gentle packing.
Do you remember the famine in Gaza? Have you ever wondered what happened about that? It was even confirmed by the UN. Complete bullshit.

People streamed from open and fully stocked cafés in Gaza while the "famine" was ongoing.
[/QUOTE] Thanks for immediately showing how my observation is.

 

[bilby]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

No, he's saying that the disarming of Hamas for good is a required goal in order for anyone who disagrees with him to be taken seriously, but that he expects to be taken seriously himself, despite falling short of that goal.

There's one rule for his policies, and another rule for anyone with the temerity to challenge those policies.

It's a very effective way for him to ignore the deep flaws in his position.

You can't come up with a realistic plan, so you should be ignored. He can't come up with a realistic plan, so he should be congratulated on his pragmatism and compromise.

Israel occupying Gaza and making it into a police state, is realistic.

Not as a method for disarming Hamas. Nor as a method for making Palestinians less keen to support or to join Hamas.

And seems to be the only viable option.

Towards what goal?

I think that's what they are doing. War is war. Ground troops are only deployed after artillery has done it's thing. That's how you fight a modern war. It's the Palestinians who chose to start a war in a dense urban environment.

Well, it's not like they had anywhere else they could have chosen.

Hamas chose to provoke a war. The vast majority of Palestinians were not consulted. And Israel didn't have to respond to that provocation with genocide; They have been provoked many times in the past without doing so.

That's not the fault of Israel.

Indeed.

IDF have no reason to unnecessarily risk the lives of their troops by walking into a Hamas death trap.

For sure. They could just stay home.

IDF is just responding, in a good way, to the challenge they are facing.

That dependes on your definition of "good", and on how narrowly you define their challenge. I would argue that killing lots of noncombatants is never "good", and that the biggest challenge they are facing is not "how to defeat Hamas", but rather "how to defeat Hamas without killing lots of noncombatants".

This is doubly true given that their chosen course seems unlikely in the extreme to be effective in defeating Hamas, and that killing lots of noncombatants is actually counterproductive to the goal of defeating Hamas.

I don't blame them.

I do. And you should.

This is not what I wanted. But if the Gazans are this committed to endless violence. This is the result.

The Gazans are not committed to endless violence. Hamas are. And so, it seems, are Likud (who are not Israel, nor Judaism; It is perfectly possible to oppose Likud policy without being antisemitic, and without being even anti-Israel, as the recent election demonstrated).

BTW, this is not so much an ethnic conflict. The Palestinians are not one unified group. The Palestinians who live inside the borders of Israel aren't causing any trouble. They're not doing any suicide bombings. They're not radicalised. They're voting and have the same rights as the Jews. Palestinians in Israel are not second class citizens. This is NOT purely an ethnic or religious conflict. It's way more complicated.

Indeed. And yet you seem to think that lumping "Palestinian", "Gazan", and "Hamas" together as a set of synonyms is somehow helpful. It's not.

 

[Tigers!]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

No, he's saying that the disarming of Hamas for good is a required goal in order for anyone who disagrees with him to be taken seriously, but that he expects to be taken seriously himself, despite falling short of that goal.

There's one rule for his policies, and another rule for anyone with the temerity to challenge those policies.

It's a very effective way for him to ignore the deep flaws in his position.

You can't come up with a realistic plan, so you should be ignored. He can't come up with a realistic plan, so he should be congratulated on his pragmatism and compromise.

Israel occupying Gaza and making it into a police state, is realistic.

Not as a method for disarming Hamas. Nor as a method for making Palestinians less keen to support or to join Hamas.

And seems to be the only viable option.

Towards what goal?

I think that's what they are doing. War is war. Ground troops are only deployed after artillery has done it's thing. That's how you fight a modern war. It's the Palestinians who chose to start a war in a dense urban environment.

Well, it's not like they had anywhere else they could have chosen.

Hamas chose to provoke a war. The vast majority of Palestinians were not consulted. And Israel didn't have to respond to that provocation with genocide; They have been provoked many times in the past without doing so.

Killing 1200 and kidnapping > 200 is now just a provocation?
Do you really believe that if Israel had done nothing after 7/10 then Hamas, Hezbollah etc. would not have taken that as evidence that Israel had lost it nerve or will to defend themselves?

That's not the fault of Israel.

Indeed.

IDF have no reason to unnecessarily risk the lives of their troops by walking into a Hamas death trap.

For sure. They could just stay home.

IDF is just responding, in a good way, to the challenge they are facing.

That dependes on your definition of "good", and on how narrowly you define their challenge. I would argue that killing lots of noncombatants is never "good", and that the biggest challenge they are facing is not "how to defeat Hamas", but rather "how to defeat Hamas without killing lots of noncombatants".

This is doubly true given that their chosen course seems unlikely in the extreme to be effective in defeating Hamas, and that killing lots of noncombatants is actually counterproductive to the goal of defeating Hamas.

I don't blame them.

I do. And you should.

This is not what I wanted. But if the Gazans are this committed to endless violence. This is the result.

The Gazans are not committed to endless violence. Hamas are.

There were a lot of Gazans rejoicing in their streets after 7/10. Hardly seems like they are not committed to endless violence.

And so, it seems, are Likud (who are not Israel, nor Judaism; It is perfectly possible to oppose Likud policy without being antisemitic, and without being even anti-Israel, as the recent election demonstrated).

Indeed.

BTW, this is not so much an ethnic conflict. The Palestinians are not one unified group. The Palestinians who live inside the borders of Israel aren't causing any trouble. They're not doing any suicide bombings. They're not radicalised. They're voting and have the same rights as the Jews. Palestinians in Israel are not second class citizens. This is NOT purely an ethnic or religious conflict. It's way more complicated.

Indeed. And yet you seem to think that lumping "Palestinian", "Gazan", and "Hamas" together as a set of synonyms is somehow helpful. It's not.

 

[Tigers!]

Who are the good guys here again?

Do not know anymore.

 

[bilby]

Killing 1200 and kidnapping > 200 is now just a provocation?

Where did you get the word "just" from?

 

[bilby]

Do you really believe that if Israel had done nothing after 7/10 then Hamas, Hezbollah etc. would not have taken that as evidence that Israel had lost it nerve or will to defend themselves?

Nope.

Do you really believe that the only option other than what they did was "nothing"?

 

[bilby]

There were a lot of Gazans rejoicing in their streets after 7/10. Hardly seems like they are not committed to endless violence.

How many is "a lot"? What proportion of the population was it, do you think?

 

[steve_bank]

DrZ

I am not going to repeat all the posts I made in response to you and others.

I will say the basic conflict between Palestinians and Israel is over land. It began at lest as far back as the 1930s. Palestine Jews opposed relocating Arabs off teheir land to make room for Jews.

Israel displaced Palestinians and continued to do so after the fouhnding. Jew3ish colonists as we speak are forcing Palestinians off their land and occupying it.

Freedom fighter or terrorist depends on which side you are on.

You again have a shallow opinionated view.

Netanyahu a Zionist said publicly Jews have a biblical god given right to the land that was Israel 2000 years ago. He is an Israeli Trump who tried to dismantle the Israeli judicial system.

There has always been a minority support for Palestinian rights in Israel, but at this point I do not care what happens to Israel. 15 years ago I would not have said that.

I do not wish Israel harm but whichever way it goes I do not care.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who are the good guys here again?

Do not know anymore.

I think a problem with analysing the Palestine Israel conflict is thinking in terms of bad guys and good guys. Both sides are neck deep in atrocities. It couldn't be messier.

Any black and white analyses will inevitably lead to a need to downplay and whitewash one sides atrocities. Which will create a false narrative.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The people who have a problem with Israels actions don't seem to be able to come up with any kind of alternative realistic plan that will disarm Hamas for good.

The bombing and invasion did not disarm Hamas for good, but it did kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. Is that the realistic part of that plan?

If you can't get what you want you'll have to settle for what you can get. Politics is the art of the possible. Its not an excercise in utopianism

So, you are saying that since Israel could not get the disarmament of Hamas they settled for killing thousands of civilians? That’s a political victory?

No, he's saying that the disarming of Hamas for good is a required goal in order for anyone who disagrees with him to be taken seriously, but that he expects to be taken seriously himself, despite falling short of that goal.

There's one rule for his policies, and another rule for anyone with the temerity to challenge those policies.

It's a very effective way for him to ignore the deep flaws in his position.

You can't come up with a realistic plan, so you should be ignored. He can't come up with a realistic plan, so he should be congratulated on his pragmatism and compromise.

Israel occupying Gaza and making it into a police state, is realistic.

Not as a method for disarming Hamas. Nor as a method for making Palestinians less keen to support or to join Hamas.

In a police state it doesn't matter what people think.

Unless you haven't noticed, Muslim countries tend to be police states. Clearly there's something about the culture that keeps pushing these countries towards these kinds of governments. When Egypt had a free and fair election the Muslim Brotherhood (=police state) won an overwhelming majority.

Cultures are different. Arabs are not Europeans. They have a different history. Different cultural norms. A different society. And a different culture. Cultures aren't monolithic and eternal. Cultures are continually evolving. I have no doubt that the Middle-East will eventually copy the western culture and become yet another western clone. But that hasn't happened yet. And until then we can't expect them to behave like westerners.

And seems to be the only viable option.

Towards what goal?

Stopping continued attacks against Jews in Israel. Rockets are expensive. I think, if Israel controls Gaza and south Lebanon, and Golan there's nowhere left for terrorists to launch rockets = win.

I think that's what they are doing. War is war. Ground troops are only deployed after artillery has done it's thing. That's how you fight a modern war. It's the Palestinians who chose to start a war in a dense urban environment.

Well, it's not like they had anywhere else they could have chosen.

Hamas chose to provoke a war. The vast majority of Palestinians were not consulted. And Israel didn't have to respond to that provocation with genocide; They have been provoked many times in the past without doing so.

Interesting choice of words, genocide. Now I don't care what you think about anything. That choice of words gives you away.

That's not the fault of Israel.

Indeed.

IDF have no reason to unnecessarily risk the lives of their troops by walking into a Hamas death trap.

For sure. They could just stay home.

And just wait to be slaughtered a bit later? You really do seem to hate Jews.

This is not what I wanted. But if the Gazans are this committed to endless violence. This is the result.

The Gazans are not committed to endless violence. Hamas are.

Among Palestinian expats in the west, there's near zero Palestinian support for any peaceful solution. These people are not under any threat or pressure to support Hamas. Most seem to anyway. You can keep blaming Hamas, as if they're the baddies. But there's no way Hamas could stay in power if they didn't have a lot of Palestinian support.

Remember "Ship to Gaza"? The leaders of it were up to their eyeballs in ties to Hamas. Yet, these were the people western based Palestinians put forward to represent them. There's no Palestinian expat movement to speak of to get outside support to remove Hamas.

Somewhere surely we should be able to find some Palestinian movement out there who wants peace with the Israelis? There's nothing.

And so, it seems, are Likud (who are not Israel, nor Judaism; It is perfectly possible to oppose Likud policy without being antisemitic, and without being even anti-Israel, as the recent election demonstrated).

I oppose Likud's policies. I hate Netanyahu. I'm politically opposed to him.

BTW, this is not so much an ethnic conflict. The Palestinians are not one unified group. The Palestinians who live inside the borders of Israel aren't causing any trouble. They're not doing any suicide bombings. They're not radicalised. They're voting and have the same rights as the Jews. Palestinians in Israel are not second class citizens. This is NOT purely an ethnic or religious conflict. It's way more complicated.

Indeed. And yet you seem to think that lumping "Palestinian", "Gazan", and "Hamas" together as a set of synonyms is somehow helpful. It's not.

The quoted paragraph you replied to prove you wrong. I will refer to that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Unless you haven't noticed, Muslim countries tend to be police states. Clearly there's something about the culture that keeps pushing these countries towards these kinds of governments. When Egypt had a free and fair election the Muslim Brotherhood (=police state) won an overwhelming majority.

Compared to what it had before the MB assumed government?