Pogroms and blaming the Jews

[DrZoidberg]

In the Israeli narrative any criticism of Israel is from antisemitism with no basis for a prejudice.\

The reactions to Israel are based on what Israel has been and is doing to the Palestinian people, stang with foundngof Israel and azure of Arab land,

A few Israelis in Amsterdam are assaulted and apologies are made and it is global news.

In what way wasn't this antisemitism?

When over decades Palestinians in occupied West Bank are pushed off their land and reproducer by Israelis hardly a peep over here.

Historical bias and the Jewish experience in WWII are irrelevant to the issue. It is about what the collective state of Israel is doing.

If anything it is the Palestinians who have been reduced to a stereotype. Te result of a long proganda campi9gn over here to paint Palestinians as terrorist without justification and Israel as an innocent victim. Hetanyahu playedto American conserve Christians. He is the protector of the Holy Land.

From the founding Arabs who were in Israel when the borders were declared were subjected to a form of Jim Crow racism, admitted by Israel in the late 90s. Less than equal treatment, unequal access to services.

The oppressed becomes the oppressor.

Forget Israel is Jewish and look at the history.


As to European soccer violence., other tan it being Jews it does not seem out of the ordinary....

What an insane post. What does the war in Gaza have to do with football in Amsterdam? What does the players Jewishness enter into anything?


That said, I think it's funny that the Israelis named their team Maccabi. The Macabees were basically Jewish Nazis who ethnicatly cleansed their oponents. Anyhoo. Just a weird name to chose in these times. But then again the Greeks have a team called the Spartans. So I guess it's all good

 

[Jarhyn]

In what way wasn't this antisemitism?

In the same way that a few Germans beating on some brit soccer hooligans in Berlin doesn't make the incident anti-british, it makes the Germans anti-soccer-hoologan.

Israelis don't get to wear their Jewish identity as their reason for being attacked to push an antisemitic narrative when the cause was their soccer hooligan identities.

The very fact that they are juggling identities to avoid consequences for hooliganism is, frankly, an act of anti-semitism.

I have seen this behavior countless times, too, mostly on the bus:

Imagine a bus where someone is acting like an aggressive drunk (imagine that!), and making people feel unsafe. Let's say someone asks them to quiet down because it's not how you are supposed to act on a bus... But the person instantly starts claiming that it's because they are black and the music that they're playing at an 11 is black and that you are harassing them because you are white! But this itself is implicating their blackness in their bad behavior...

It is saying some aspect of their behavior is intrinsically tied to their race or culture...

Tying some coincidentally bad behavior to race and culture is racist stereotyping.

The people who do this are stereotyping themselves and then blaming others for calling them out on acting like an awful fucking stereotype.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

Because you can't prove a negative.

If you agree it is speculation, why are you arguing?

So now it's supposedly about me?

They were asked to produce the evidence and responded by instead removing the claim.

Why do you think that doesn't mean they realized they didn't actually have the evidence? It's "speculation" because it doesn't make the Jews look bad?

That is not a rebuttal but an evasion..

I see no reason to believe the speculations and reporting of a pro-Israeli organization, especially when some of the reporting is contradicted by eyewitnesses.

You are not establishing any reason to think they're wrong.

Simple thing: they asked for the evidence, the references to it disappeared. Doesn't matter that they are pro-Israel. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant as this is only going after one piece of evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

Because you can't prove a negative.

If you agree it is speculation, why are you arguing?

So now it's supposedly about me?

They were asked to produce the evidence and responded by instead removing the claim.

Why do you think that doesn't mean they realized they didn't actually have the evidence? It's "speculation" because it doesn't make the Jews look bad?

That is not a rebuttal but an evasion..

I see no reason to believe the speculations and reporting of a pro-Israeli organization, especially when some of the reporting is contradicted by eyewitnesses.

You are not establishing any reason to think they're wrong.

If eyewitnesses saw the video that is in dispute, then there is evidence the video exists. We have a poster in this thread who attests to the existence of that video. That suggests to me that the video exists. It suggests to me that your source is either mischaracterizing the situation or is just incompetent.

Simple thing: they asked for the evidence, the references to it disappeared. Doesn't matter that they are pro-Israel. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant as this is only going after one piece of evidence.

You have not established any reason to believe your biased sources reporting.

 

[Jarhyn]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

Because you can't prove a negative.

If you agree it is speculation, why are you arguing?

So now it's supposedly about me?

They were asked to produce the evidence and responded by instead removing the claim.

Why do you think that doesn't mean they realized they didn't actually have the evidence? It's "speculation" because it doesn't make the Jews look bad?

That is not a rebuttal but an evasion..

I see no reason to believe the speculations and reporting of a pro-Israeli organization, especially when some of the reporting is contradicted by eyewitnesses.

You are not establishing any reason to think they're wrong.

If eyewitnesses saw the video that is in dispute, then there is evidence the video exists. We have a poster in this thread who attests to the existence of that video. That suggests to me that the video exists. It suggests to me that your source is either mischaracterizing the situation or is just incompetent.

Simple thing: they asked for the evidence, the references to it disappeared. Doesn't matter that they are pro-Israel. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant as this is only going after one piece of evidence.

You have not established any reason to believe your biased sources reporting.

I am just going to point out what the CEO killer media coverage looks like.

If I look at a place where people meet in open forum about it, I can see easily and clearly that nobody who I care about living or dying is really shedding a single tear for that shithead.

If I turn on the news or look up a news report, I'm going to overwhelmingly find mourning and tragedy and "oh how could a tragedy like this happen".

Something about the whole of the media picked up a stink from that shit take that's transparently a cover for the behavior that led to the real public sentiment. It had that stink before but now it's blatant?

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

If Israel actually cared about being the hero, they would have made a place in their society for the Palestinians, and invited as many as they could through their doors into good lives. Israel could have starved Hamas of their hostage civilian population through generosity and they did not. They wanted the civilian shields there, because they would rather put a bullet through both and just not admit that's their plan all along.

Israel disgusts me.

Hamas disgusts me.

The solution was to always kill Hamas with excessive kindness. Why would they do that for people that hate them? Because that is how you kill the hate without killing the people. I would wager that the only reason someone wouldn't is because They harbor hate. I don't hate Israelis. I love Israelis. I love Palestinians. I hate their hate for each other. I want to see the hate die. I wish they could hate their hate rather than each other.

Instead we have a world that perpetuates a cycle of violence and hatred whose only beneficiary is to empower the powerful!

I use this to figure how much I would trust someone's motives, as to where they would stand in this equation and who they would empower.

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

Ethical military forces do not hide behind civilians. And when civilians get caught in the conflict they try to get them out of it.

If Israel actually cared about being the hero, they would have made a place in their society for the Palestinians, and invited as many as they could through their doors into good lives. Israel could have starved Hamas of their hostage civilian population through generosity and they did not. They wanted the civilian shields there, because they would rather put a bullet through both and just not admit that's their plan all along.

You clearly do not understand. They had a place, the terror money lead them to shit on it.

The solution was to always kill Hamas with excessive kindness. Why would they do that for people that hate them? Because that is how you kill the hate without killing the people. I would wager that the only reason someone wouldn't is because They harbor hate. I don't hate Israelis. I love Israelis. I love Palestinians. I hate their hate for each other. I want to see the hate die. I wish they could hate their hate rather than each other.

The hate comes from the terror money, not from the reality.

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

They don't tell Israel to do something different because they know there isn't a viable something different. Meanwhile, the world is content to say nothing while Israel bombs Syria's chemical weapons to keep them out of terrorist hands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are not establishing any reason to think they're wrong.

If eyewitnesses saw the video that is in dispute, then there is evidence the video exists. We have a poster in this thread who attests to the existence of that video. That suggests to me that the video exists. It suggests to me that your source is either mischaracterizing the situation or is just incompetent.

Simple thing: they asked for the evidence, the references to it disappeared. Doesn't matter that they are pro-Israel. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant as this is only going after one piece of evidence.

You have not established any reason to believe your biased sources reporting.

Eyewitnesses are frequently wrong. Given what has been said by both sides I rather suspect the video is "real" but is not what it purports to be.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

Ethical military forces do not hide behind civilians. And when civilians get caught in the conflict they try to get them out of it.

WHO are you arguing against? Is anyone in the thread claiming that Hamas is ethical?

We see this repeatedly from you and the other pro-genocide^* Infidels here. You will NEVER accuse Netanyahu of committing atrocity, because Hamas is "unethical." Killing a million innocent Palestinians would be OK with you because Hamas is "unethical."

* - No. I don't think you are literally pro-genocide. But some of you label the anti-atrocity folk as "anti-Semitic", so it seems apt to reciprocate and "give you a taste of your own medicine."

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

They don't tell Israel to do something different because they know there isn't a viable something different....

Israel has allowed 800,000 Jews to confiscate Palestinian land and settle illegally. Are you saying it was "unviable" for them to call a halt to illegal settlements when there were only 700,000 settlers?

Can you offer ANY justification for those settlements other than "Ha ha ha. Military might maks right"?

 

[laughing dog]

You are not establishing any reason to think they're wrong.

If eyewitnesses saw the video that is in dispute, then there is evidence the video exists. We have a poster in this thread who attests to the existence of that video. That suggests to me that the video exists. It suggests to me that your source is either mischaracterizing the situation or is just incompetent.

Simple thing: they asked for the evidence, the references to it disappeared. Doesn't matter that they are pro-Israel. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant as this is only going after one piece of evidence.

You have not established any reason to believe your biased sources reporting.

Eyewitnesses are frequently wrong. Given what has been said by both sides I rather suspect the video is "real" but is not what it purports to be.

Propaganda sites are more frequently wrong.

And there is an eyewitness in this thread tgat verified the videos existence.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

Ethical military forces do not hide behind civilians. And when civilians get caught in the conflict they try to get them out of it.

WHO are you arguing against? Is anyone in the thread claiming that Hamas is ethical?

We see this repeatedly from you and the other pro-genocide^* Infidels here. You will NEVER accuse Netanyahu of committing atrocity, because Hamas is "unethical." Killing a million innocent Palestinians would be OK with you because Hamas is "unethical."

* - No. I don't think you are literally pro-genocide. But some of you label the anti-atrocity folk as "anti-Semitic", so it seems apt to reciprocate and "give you a taste of your own medicine."

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

They don't tell Israel to do something different because they know there isn't a viable something different....

Israel has allowed 800,000 Jews to confiscate Palestinian land and settle illegally. Are you saying it was "unviable" for them to call a halt to illegal settlements when there were only 700,000 settlers?

Can you offer ANY justification for those settlements other than "Ha ha ha. Military might maks right"?

And my point was that Israel should have built and improved those settlements... For the Palestinians themselves. That would have probably ended this all. Rebuild Palestine. Ask for nothing.

Whatever this will have accomplished it will have first accomplished people being safe and happy and warm.

 

[bilby]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

Ethical military forces do not hide behind civilians. And when civilians get caught in the conflict they try to get them out of it.

WHO are you arguing against? Is anyone in the thread claiming that Hamas is ethical?

We see this repeatedly from you and the other pro-genocide^* Infidels here. You will NEVER accuse Netanyahu of committing atrocity, because Hamas is "unethical." Killing a million innocent Palestinians would be OK with you because Hamas is "unethical."

* - No. I don't think you are literally pro-genocide. But some of you label the anti-atrocity folk as "anti-Semitic", so it seems apt to reciprocate and "give you a taste of your own medicine."

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

They don't tell Israel to do something different because they know there isn't a viable something different....

Israel has allowed 800,000 Jews to confiscate Palestinian land and settle illegally. Are you saying it was "unviable" for them to call a halt to illegal settlements when there were only 700,000 settlers?

Can you offer ANY justification for those settlements other than "Ha ha ha. Military might maks right"?

And my point was that Israel should have built and improved those settlements... For the Palestinians themselves. That would have probably ended this all. Rebuild Palestine. Ask for nothing.

Whatever this will have accomplished it will have first accomplished people being safe and happy and warm.

Yeah, like that could ever work.

Oh, wait...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

Ethical military forces do not hide behind civilians. And when civilians get caught in the conflict they try to get them out of it.

WHO are you arguing against? Is anyone in the thread claiming that Hamas is ethical?

Note what I'm replying to "Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians." A discussion of what's actually happening.

We see this repeatedly from you and the other pro-genocide^* Infidels here. You will NEVER accuse Netanyahu of committing atrocity, because Hamas is "unethical." Killing a million innocent Palestinians would be OK with you because Hamas is "unethical."

The problem is that Hamas is in effect using it's civilians as weapons in the war of public opinion and you're falling for it. They get their civilians killed, you blame Israel and thus protect Hamas.

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

They don't tell Israel to do something different because they know there isn't a viable something different....

Israel has allowed 800,000 Jews to confiscate Palestinian land and settle illegally. Are you saying it was "unviable" for them to call a halt to illegal settlements when there were only 700,000 settlers?

Can you offer ANY justification for those settlements other than "Ha ha ha. Military might maks right"?

I question how much confiscation there was--the arguments for it are generally very sloppy. I do agree there are a bunch of settlers, I don't like it but I recognize that they have no bearing on the war as the war predates them. They're just a convenient excuse. Israel for the most part doesn't like it, either, but the people recognize that they're not the cause of the problem and aren't interested in removing them by force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are not establishing any reason to think they're wrong.

If eyewitnesses saw the video that is in dispute, then there is evidence the video exists. We have a poster in this thread who attests to the existence of that video. That suggests to me that the video exists. It suggests to me that your source is either mischaracterizing the situation or is just incompetent.

Simple thing: they asked for the evidence, the references to it disappeared. Doesn't matter that they are pro-Israel. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant as this is only going after one piece of evidence.

You have not established any reason to believe your biased sources reporting.

Eyewitnesses are frequently wrong. Given what has been said by both sides I rather suspect the video is "real" but is not what it purports to be.

Propaganda sites are more frequently wrong.

And there is an eyewitness in this thread tgat verified the videos existence.

You're not addressing the scenario I propose at all.

We have testimony that it exists. We have news organizations removing mentions of it. What fits both of these? That the video exists but is not what it purports to be. Simplest option that fits the facts, why are you ignoring it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

Ethical military forces do not hide behind civilians. And when civilians get caught in the conflict they try to get them out of it.

WHO are you arguing against? Is anyone in the thread claiming that Hamas is ethical?

We see this repeatedly from you and the other pro-genocide^* Infidels here. You will NEVER accuse Netanyahu of committing atrocity, because Hamas is "unethical." Killing a million innocent Palestinians would be OK with you because Hamas is "unethical."

* - No. I don't think you are literally pro-genocide. But some of you label the anti-atrocity folk as "anti-Semitic", so it seems apt to reciprocate and "give you a taste of your own medicine."

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

They don't tell Israel to do something different because they know there isn't a viable something different....

Israel has allowed 800,000 Jews to confiscate Palestinian land and settle illegally. Are you saying it was "unviable" for them to call a halt to illegal settlements when there were only 700,000 settlers?

Can you offer ANY justification for those settlements other than "Ha ha ha. Military might maks right"?

And my point was that Israel should have built and improved those settlements... For the Palestinians themselves. That would have probably ended this all. Rebuild Palestine. Ask for nothing.

Whatever this will have accomplished it will have first accomplished people being safe and happy and warm.

Yeah, like that could ever work.

Oh, wait...

We have an actual example to look at: what happened when Israel pulled out of Gaza. Everything they left behind was wrecked by the Palestinians.

 

[Arctish]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

Ethical military forces do not hide behind civilians. And when civilians get caught in the conflict they try to get them out of it.

WHO are you arguing against? Is anyone in the thread claiming that Hamas is ethical?

Note what I'm replying to "Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians." A discussion of what's actually happening.

We see this repeatedly from you and the other pro-genocide^* Infidels here. You will NEVER accuse Netanyahu of committing atrocity, because Hamas is "unethical." Killing a million innocent Palestinians would be OK with you because Hamas is "unethical."

The problem is that Hamas is in effect using it's civilians as weapons in the war of public opinion and you're falling for it. They get their civilians killed, you blame Israel and thus protect Hamas.

If people cared they would be telling Israel to do something different, or pulling all support. But they don't because that disempowers them because "betraying" Israel is a religious McGuffin.

They don't tell Israel to do something different because they know there isn't a viable something different....

Israel has allowed 800,000 Jews to confiscate Palestinian land and settle illegally. Are you saying it was "unviable" for them to call a halt to illegal settlements when there were only 700,000 settlers?

Can you offer ANY justification for those settlements other than "Ha ha ha. Military might maks right"?

I question how much confiscation there was--the arguments for it are generally very sloppy. I do agree there are a bunch of settlers, I don't like it but I recognize that they have no bearing on the war as the war predates them. They're just a convenient excuse. Israel for the most part doesn't like it, either, but the people recognize that they're not the cause of the problem and aren't interested in removing them by force.

There is nothing sloppy about international law that does not allow a country to move its civilians onto lands under military occupation. There was nothing sloppy about Israel joining the UN and agreeing to abide by those laws and then having a documented history of breaking them time and time again.

We've been discussing the ongoing seizure of land in the West Bank for over twenty years. You don't even deny it's happening. You used to say Israel was just "filling in" the settlement blocks because that land was "going to be Israel's anyway".

So now you want us to believe you "understand" that the ongoing land theft and robbing Palestinians of their assets and resources has no bearing on the conflict? You want us to think you're really that clueless?

Well, alrighty then.

 

[ZiprHead]

The hate comes from the terror money, not from the reality.

Being locked in an open air prison for merely existing is pretty real. But nah, that had no effect.

 

[laughing dog]

You are not establishing any reason to think they're wrong.

If eyewitnesses saw the video that is in dispute, then there is evidence the video exists. We have a poster in this thread who attests to the existence of that video. That suggests to me that the video exists. It suggests to me that your source is either mischaracterizing the situation or is just incompetent.

Simple thing: they asked for the evidence, the references to it disappeared. Doesn't matter that they are pro-Israel. Eyewitnesses are irrelevant as this is only going after one piece of evidence.

You have not established any reason to believe your biased sources reporting.

Eyewitnesses are frequently wrong. Given what has been said by both sides I rather suspect the video is "real" but is not what it purports to be.

Propaganda sites are more frequently wrong.

And there is an eyewitness in this thread tgat verified the videos existence.

You're not addressing the scenario I propose at all.

We have testimony that it exists. We have news organizations removing mentions of it. What fits both of these? That the video exists but is not what it purports to be. Simplest option that fits the facts, why are you ignoring it?

No, the simplest explanation is the one you don’t like: it exists and it is what it purports to be.

 

[Jarhyn]

The hate comes from the terror money, not from the reality.

Being locked in an open air prison for merely existing is pretty real. But nah, that had no effect.

Not to mention having the best parts of that prison hellscape constantly lopped off, wildly improved, and then given to the prison guards.

So you know it's not like life has to be this shitty there... Just that it's going to be. Because reasons. And if you start supporting the one person in the prison who says they got your back, you're quickly going to find that by this they mean they "have" it because they're hiding behind it.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm just utterly done with taking any strong narrative at face value, especially when it concerns Israel and Palestine. Of course Hamas is generally going to be hiding behind civilians. This doesn't justify bombing the civilians! It justifies *making a better place for those civilians to be than to act as human shields*.

If Israel actually cared about being the hero, they would have made a place in their society for the Palestinians, and invited as many as they could through their doors into good lives.

Huh. You're making it sound like Israelis would rather be live regular people than dead heroes. Who'd a thunk it? But, actually, you have a strange notion of what heroism entails. To bet your life on a longshot in the hope of making a better world for all would be pretty heroic, sure. But to bet the lives of your wife and kids and neighbors on a longshot they didn't volunteer for would not be heroic. It would be criminal.

Israel could have starved Hamas of their hostage civilian population through generosity and they did not. They wanted the civilian shields there, because they would rather put a bullet through both and just not admit that's their plan all along.

Israel disgusts me.

Hamas disgusts me.

The solution was to always kill Hamas with excessive kindness. Why would they do that for people that hate them? Because that is how you kill the hate without killing the people. I would wager that the only reason someone wouldn't is because They harbor hate.

Modeling other people's motivations is something you are not at all good at. Israelis are not the cartoon villains you caricature them as and Palestinians are not the simple creatures they would need to be for your plan to work out the way you imagine. If the Israelis made a place in their society for the Palestinians and invited as many as they could through their doors into good lives, they would also be making a place and inviting through their doors tens of thousands of murderous Jew-hating thugs who'd use the access to slaughter as many Jews as they could manage, because the Israelis have no way to read Palestinians' minds, tell which ones just want to live in peace, and invite in only those. The Israelis know this.

And the Israelis also know Palestinians are not trained seals who will like you if you throw them a fish. Palestinians, just as much as Israelis, are regular people with normal human reactions and feelings. So being invited in and given good lives is not going to make them forget the Jews came in uninvited and took their country away from them. No amount of killing Hamas with excessive kindness is going to "kill the hate" and make ordinary peaceful Palestinians instead feel grateful. That's not how human psychology works. They'd see the kindness as charity, as condescension, as crumbs, as Jewish thieves making themselves feel absolved by returning a bit of the stolen loot to the Muslim owners who ought to get all of it. So they'd go right on feeling entitled to all of Palestine -- feeling they had a right not to share their wealthy country with the Jews, but to kill or exile them. And yes, they'd imagine their country still wealthy without the Jews. They wouldn't realize they'd be poor without the Jews -- that would mean admitting to themselves that Islam is a backward poverty-inducing culture. Admitting this would wound their pride. People rarely accept explanations that wound their pride.

So you lose your wager. "They harbor hate" is not the only reason someone wouldn't try killing Hamas with excessive kindness. Another reason someone wouldn't is knowing if he killed Hamas with excessive kindness then a new gang of murderous militants would just rise up in their place and a large fraction of the Palestinian population would sympathize with the replacement thugs and give no assistance in defeating them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I question how much confiscation there was--the arguments for it are generally very sloppy. I do agree there are a bunch of settlers, I don't like it but I recognize that they have no bearing on the war as the war predates them. They're just a convenient excuse. Israel for the most part doesn't like it, either, but the people recognize that they're not the cause of the problem and aren't interested in removing them by force.

There is nothing sloppy about international law that does not allow a country to move its civilians onto lands under military occupation. There was nothing sloppy about Israel joining the UN and agreeing to abide by those laws and then having a documented history of breaking them time and time again.

Please note what I said: It's not the reason, it's a distraction.