Israel-Gaza war

[Yellowhammer]

This is all highly organized. It's not just that it's not representative, it's that it's actively non-representative, with the intention of deceiving the pols and drowning out the majority.

They've also made their pet issue toxic. Note how all the reps suddenly calling for a temporary stop to the fighting are using the random term "humanitarian pause" because "Cease-fire" has become associated with the fringe.

1. Almost everyone is saying ceasefire
2. Ignore this all you want just like you ignore the situation in Gaza, but it will come back to bite you

You don't get that Biden can't stop this. No one can. After what Hamas has done, this is the path of action that ends with the least horror, and all the people advocating for radical moves are advocating for opening pandora's box.

Israel is dependent on the United States for its existence.

This may have been true once upon a time, but it has been wishful thinking which (unfortunately) has misinformed US policy for a very long time. There will eventually be a rude awakening.

Without US security assurance and armaments, and without the de facto bribes given in the form of aid to nations like Egypt and Jordan (some of the biggest recipients of US aid after Israel itself) to keep them on Israel's good side, it becomes a much shakier proposition.
Israeli government would certainly have to at least think twice about how they treat their Arab population without their sugar daddy standing behind them.

[Horus]

This is all highly organized. It's not just that it's not representative, it's that it's actively non-representative, with the intention of deceiving the pols and drowning out the majority.

They've also made their pet issue toxic. Note how all the reps suddenly calling for a temporary stop to the fighting are using the random term "humanitarian pause" because "Cease-fire" has become associated with the fringe.

1. Almost everyone is saying ceasefire
2. Ignore this all you want just like you ignore the situation in Gaza, but it will come back to bite you

You don't get that Biden can't stop this. No one can. After what Hamas has done, this is the path of action that ends with the least horror, and all the people advocating for radical moves are advocating for opening pandora's box.

Israel is dependent on the United States for its existence.

This may have been true once upon a time, but it has been wishful thinking which (unfortunately) has misinformed US policy for a very long time. There will eventually be a rude awakening.

Without US security assurance and armaments, and without the de facto bribes given in the form of aid to nations like Egypt and Jordan (some of the biggest recipients of US aid after Israel itself) to keep them on Israel's good side, it becomes a much shakier proposition.
Israeli government would certainly have to at least think twice about how they treat their Arab population without their sugar daddy standing behind them.

We had this discussion a few pages back. Vosem said that if we cut off Israel, Gaza would be flattened (even more than is already the case I guess) and Ray agreed.

Like I said it's similar to a child throwing a huge tantrum in a store if they don't get their favorite candy. Such things tend to happen to parents who spoil their kids without giving them rules and limits.

[Vosem]

This is all highly organized. It's not just that it's not representative, it's that it's actively non-representative, with the intention of deceiving the pols and drowning out the majority.

They've also made their pet issue toxic. Note how all the reps suddenly calling for a temporary stop to the fighting are using the random term "humanitarian pause" because "Cease-fire" has become associated with the fringe.

1. Almost everyone is saying ceasefire
2. Ignore this all you want just like you ignore the situation in Gaza, but it will come back to bite you

You don't get that Biden can't stop this. No one can. After what Hamas has done, this is the path of action that ends with the least horror, and all the people advocating for radical moves are advocating for opening pandora's box.

Israel is dependent on the United States for its existence.

This may have been true once upon a time, but it has been wishful thinking which (unfortunately) has misinformed US policy for a very long time. There will eventually be a rude awakening.

Without US security assurance and armaments, and without the de facto bribes given in the form of aid to nations like Egypt and Jordan (some of the biggest recipients of US aid after Israel itself) to keep them on Israel's good side, it becomes a much shakier proposition.
Israeli government would certainly have to at least think twice about how they treat their Arab population without their sugar daddy standing behind them.

We had this discussion a few pages back. Vosem said that if we cut off Israel, Gaza would be flattened (even more than is already the case I guess) and Ray agreed.

Like I said it's similar to a child throwing a huge tantrum in a store if they don't get their favorite candy. Such things tend to happen to parents who spoil their children without giving them rules and limits.

Did I say that? I said that if Israel not being cut off was actually restraining the state, then it should be cut off. There's room to argue this point, but the official position of both the US and Israeli governments is that the US is not actually restraining Israel at all. (My guess is that admitting that the US is restraining Israel, if it were true, would be unpopular with the electorate).

Your posts are getting Badger-ian in the extent to which you really don't want to engage with what I'm writing and so you kind of just impute some imagined extremist that only exists in your head. This is particularly frustrating because relative to what you think what I'm writing is plenty extreme, but you keep responding to an imaginary version of it.

[Horus]

This is all highly organized. It's not just that it's not representative, it's that it's actively non-representative, with the intention of deceiving the pols and drowning out the majority.

They've also made their pet issue toxic. Note how all the reps suddenly calling for a temporary stop to the fighting are using the random term "humanitarian pause" because "Cease-fire" has become associated with the fringe.

1. Almost everyone is saying ceasefire
2. Ignore this all you want just like you ignore the situation in Gaza, but it will come back to bite you

You don't get that Biden can't stop this. No one can. After what Hamas has done, this is the path of action that ends with the least horror, and all the people advocating for radical moves are advocating for opening pandora's box.

Israel is dependent on the United States for its existence.

This may have been true once upon a time, but it has been wishful thinking which (unfortunately) has misinformed US policy for a very long time. There will eventually be a rude awakening.

Without US security assurance and armaments, and without the de facto bribes given in the form of aid to nations like Egypt and Jordan (some of the biggest recipients of US aid after Israel itself) to keep them on Israel's good side, it becomes a much shakier proposition.
Israeli government would certainly have to at least think twice about how they treat their Arab population without their sugar daddy standing behind them.

We had this discussion a few pages back. Vosem said that if we cut off Israel, Gaza would be flattened (even more than is already the case I guess) and Ray agreed.

Like I said it's similar to a child throwing a huge tantrum in a store if they don't get their favorite candy. Such things tend to happen to parents who spoil their children without giving them rules and limits.

Did I say that? I said that if Israel not being cut off was actually restraining the state, then it should be cut off. There's room to argue this point, but the official position of both the US and Israeli governments is that the US is not actually restraining Israel at all. (My guess is that admitting that the US is restraining Israel, if it were true, would be unpopular with the electorate).

Your posts are getting Badger-ian in the extent to which you really don't want to engage with what I'm writing and so you kind of just impute some imagined extremist that only exists in your head. This is particularly frustrating because relative to what you think what I'm writing is plenty extreme, but you keep responding to an imaginary version of it.

You are an extremist on this issue and I'm not imagining it.

You think Western media is biased against Israel and rich countries/people lmao

[Yellowhammer]

This is all highly organized. It's not just that it's not representative, it's that it's actively non-representative, with the intention of deceiving the pols and drowning out the majority.

They've also made their pet issue toxic. Note how all the reps suddenly calling for a temporary stop to the fighting are using the random term "humanitarian pause" because "Cease-fire" has become associated with the fringe.

1. Almost everyone is saying ceasefire
2. Ignore this all you want just like you ignore the situation in Gaza, but it will come back to bite you

You don't get that Biden can't stop this. No one can. After what Hamas has done, this is the path of action that ends with the least horror, and all the people advocating for radical moves are advocating for opening pandora's box.

Israel is dependent on the United States for its existence.

This may have been true once upon a time, but it has been wishful thinking which (unfortunately) has misinformed US policy for a very long time. There will eventually be a rude awakening.

Without US security assurance and armaments, and without the de facto bribes given in the form of aid to nations like Egypt and Jordan (some of the biggest recipients of US aid after Israel itself) to keep them on Israel's good side, it becomes a much shakier proposition.
Israeli government would certainly have to at least think twice about how they treat their Arab population without their sugar daddy standing behind them.

We had this discussion a few pages back. Vosem said that if we cut off Israel, Gaza would be flattened (even more than is already the case I guess) and Ray agreed.

Like I said it's similar to a child throwing a huge tantrum in a store if they don't get their favorite candy. Such things tend to happen to parents who spoil their kids without giving them rules and limits.

Gaza would absolutely be flattened, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine would no doubt be completed, but there wouldn't be much of anything holding back Iran + the rest of the Middle East from responding in kind, or at least trying to do so. It wouldn't be pretty for Israel, even if it managed to survive.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/jvplive/status/1719398822521024721

https://twitter.com/NiallStanage/status/1719407436241469538

So this is 100% a war crime under any sane definition.

My worst fears about how Netanyahu would carry out this war are being confirmed.

No? It doesn't even seem like sources within the Gaza Strip are disputing that the area was used to store munitions and therefore a legitimate military target.

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1719418851941609622

Lol. That eigenrobot dude is one of the most amoral people I have ever encountered. Perhaps even worse than that, he's an idiot. His source here is an unsourced claim from a source that has often been wrong in the past few days. Plus, you'd think that the IDF would have mentioned this if this was their rationale instead of harping on about the one (1) Hamas dude they think they killed.

It seems to me that if I had made various political commitments that forced me to default to the bombing of a refugee camp being totally laudable in the absence of evidence I would seriously reevaluate those political commitments. Truly pathetic lack of intellectual seriousness

[Vosem]

This is all highly organized. It's not just that it's not representative, it's that it's actively non-representative, with the intention of deceiving the pols and drowning out the majority.

They've also made their pet issue toxic. Note how all the reps suddenly calling for a temporary stop to the fighting are using the random term "humanitarian pause" because "Cease-fire" has become associated with the fringe.

1. Almost everyone is saying ceasefire
2. Ignore this all you want just like you ignore the situation in Gaza, but it will come back to bite you

You don't get that Biden can't stop this. No one can. After what Hamas has done, this is the path of action that ends with the least horror, and all the people advocating for radical moves are advocating for opening pandora's box.

Israel is dependent on the United States for its existence.

This may have been true once upon a time, but it has been wishful thinking which (unfortunately) has misinformed US policy for a very long time. There will eventually be a rude awakening.

Without US security assurance and armaments, and without the de facto bribes given in the form of aid to nations like Egypt and Jordan (some of the biggest recipients of US aid after Israel itself) to keep them on Israel's good side, it becomes a much shakier proposition.
Israeli government would certainly have to at least think twice about how they treat their Arab population without their sugar daddy standing behind them.

We had this discussion a few pages back. Vosem said that if we cut off Israel, Gaza would be flattened (even more than is already the case I guess) and Ray agreed.

Like I said it's similar to a child throwing a huge tantrum in a store if they don't get their favorite candy. Such things tend to happen to parents who spoil their children without giving them rules and limits.

Did I say that? I said that if Israel not being cut off was actually restraining the state, then it should be cut off. There's room to argue this point, but the official position of both the US and Israeli governments is that the US is not actually restraining Israel at all. (My guess is that admitting that the US is restraining Israel, if it were true, would be unpopular with the electorate).

Your posts are getting Badger-ian in the extent to which you really don't want to engage with what I'm writing and so you kind of just impute some imagined extremist that only exists in your head. This is particularly frustrating because relative to what you think what I'm writing is plenty extreme, but you keep responding to an imaginary version of it.

You are an extremist on this issue and I'm not imagining it.

You think Western media is biased against Israel and rich countries/people lmao

This is an absolutely hilarious post because I accuse you of not reading my posts and instead just responding to what you imagine I'm writing, and then you dramatically accuse me of something I calmly admit to in the very next sentence.

If you want to disagree with people, please learn to read! Many others have done it!

Anyway, yes, Western media is obviously biased against Israel and rich countries/people, and only very silly individuals try to dispute this. The bias against Israel is so funny and extreme that they're at the point where the only way to keep the narrative going is by hiring literal Nazis, which you have to assume are not very easy to find in the year 2023. (They should team up with Anthony Rota.)

https://twitter.com/zackkanter/status/1717346970522497450

https://twitter.com/jvplive/status/1719398822521024721

https://twitter.com/NiallStanage/status/1719407436241469538

So this is 100% a war crime under any sane definition.

My worst fears about how Netanyahu would carry out this war are being confirmed.

No? It doesn't even seem like sources within the Gaza Strip are disputing that the area was used to store munitions and therefore a legitimate military target.

https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1719418851941609622

Lol. That eigenrobot dude is one of the most amoral people I have ever encountered. Perhaps even worse than that, he's an idiot. His source here is an unsourced claim from a source that has often been wrong in the past few days. Plus, you'd think that the IDF would have mentioned this if this was their rationale instead of harping on about the one (1) Hamas dude they think they killed.

It seems to me that if I had made various political commitments that forced me to default to the bombing of a refugee camp being totally laudable in the absence of evidence I would seriously reevaluate those political commitments. Truly pathetic lack of intellectual seriousness

I've met him and his family IRL (which is why I cite him so frequently); he's great. (Also, what has that account gotten wrong in the past few days? At least early in the war they were a great resource, frequently getting things right before others had admitted to them).

Look, if I had political commitments that forced me to default to a position where countries with free and open media do evil things purely for the lulz, then I would maybe stop and consider how out of touch my ideas are with reality. In fact you very safely can say that when developed countries bomb refugee camps, it is for good reason. (In fact, if I had your political commitments, I would stop and consider whether a blanket position that hospitals, schools, and refugee camps are sacrosanct doesn't directly cause their militarization, endangering the lives of the people there. The naïve pro-Palestinian viewpoint where you just assume that Israel does things out of cartoon villainy is supportable only by those who just don't see incentives playing any role in any kind of human behavior; this neatly explains why it is widespread among economic leftists.)

[Horus]

Snip

I will admit I was reading too quickly and got mixed up. I'm glad you have the self awareness to know your views are extreme. I'd also call them satanic but hey, tomato tomahto.

[afleitch]

Responding to the 'embedding' of military supplies and munitions (if that is indeed the case) amongst civilians by bombarding civilians does not suggest either restraint or care for the civilian life. It is not proportionate.

Israel is a democratic state. That is the basis of its constitution and the basis of other democratic states' engagement with Israel. The international rules of law are unfair because they must place a greater burden on democratic states to show restraint and follow the law regardless of the emotional impact of an attack on its own people, when the emotional impact is the same amongst the people regardless of who is in power. Both governed halves of Palestine are not democratic states nor are they even functioning 'states'. What they do, or rather what is done to them in terms of aggression or acts of claimed self-defence cannot even be met with an ‘in-kind’ response from a democratic state because that itself is disproportionate.

Israels military response has been undemocratic. It's diplomatic response effectively non existant other than to shame it's reputation in the United Nations. There's no need to obfuscate what it is doing to civilians in Gaza. It's movements against the West Bank, completely unjustifiable.

[Vosem]

Snip

I will admit I was reading too quickly and got mixed up. I'm glad you have the self awareness to know your views are extreme. I'd also call them satanic but hey, tomato tomahto.

Well, as that post said, 'relative to what you think'. Extremism is only ever in the eye of the beholder. I think the New York Times/Soliman Hijjy stance on this conflict is extreme, but whether he recognizes that his stance is extreme relative to mine depends on whether he's developed the empathy necessary to think from the standpoint of another human being; his writing suggests no.

[Vosem]

Responding to the 'embedding' of military supplies and munitions (if that is indeed the case) amongst civilians by bombarding civilians does not suggest either restraint or care for the civilian life. It is not proportionate.

Israel is a democratic state. That is the basis of its constitution and the basis of other democratic states' engagement with Israel. The international rules of law are unfair because they must place a greater burden on democratic states to show restraint and follow the law regardless of the emotional impact of an attack on its own people, when the emotional impact is the same amongst the people regardless of who is in power. Both governed halves of Palestine are not democratic states nor are they even functioning 'states'. What they do, or rather what is done to them in terms of aggression or acts of claimed self-defence cannot even be met with an ‘in-kind’ response from a democratic state because that itself is disproportionate.

The international rules of law place an equal burden on all internationally recognized countries, and demand that citizens not be targeted deliberately, that civilian casualties not be maximized nor that strikes be carried out against invalid military targets. Israel has not merely met this standard but has exceeded it in every conflict it has carried out over the past several decades. There is not a 'greater burden' on democratic countries (you can tell because if there were, the autocracies of the world would've wiped them out long ago), and there is no mandate that civilian casualties must be avoided to an extent making victory impossible. (Countries are also free to prioritize minimizing casualties among their own armed forces over minimizing civilian casualties, FTR, which I assume is what happened here.)

Israels military response has been undemocratic. It's diplomatic response effectively non existant other than to shame it's reputation in the United Nations. There's no need to obfuscate what it is doing to civilians in Gaza. It's movements against the West Bank, completely unjustifiable.

Its military response has been led by its democratically elected government; its diplomatic response has obtained the support of most of the large democratic nations on Earth (the US, India, and western Europe); Latin America has been more equivocal, I guess. (This includes your country, which makes it strange that you are saying this; I sort of understand where Red Velvet is coming from, as a Brazilian, but "the world stands against Israel" feels much stranger coming from a Scotsman.) I don't know if you're expecting unanimity, but you shouldn't be.

[afleitch]

The international rules of law place an equal burden on all internationally recognized countries, and demand that citizens not be targeted deliberately, that civilian casualties not be maximized nor that strikes be carried out against invalid military targets. Israel has not merely met this standard but has exceeded it in every conflict it has carried out over the past several decades.

Is a missile strike on a refugee camp potentially killing hundreds of people in order to 'take out' a single Hamas commander, not maximising civilian casualties? Is a missile strike a proportionate response to take out an individual as opposed to other means of extraction.

Its military response has been led by its democratically elected government; its diplomatic response has obtained the support of most of the large democratic nations on Earth (the US, India, and western Europe); Latin America has been more equivocal, I guess. (This includes your country, which makes it strange that you are saying this; I sort of understand where Red Velvet is coming from, as a Brazilian, but "the world stands against Israel" feels much stranger coming from a Scotsman.) I don't know if you're expecting unanimity, but you shouldn't be.

'Standing against Israel' is not my sentiment when my criticism of Israel is rooted in an appeal against democratic backsliding. That was the case prior to October 7th.

I do empathise with the Palestinian victims of Israel's response and the dismissiveness of their plight as nothing more than collateral damage, rather than as victims of human suffering and humanitarian crisis. Which was also the case before October 7th.

[Vosem]

The international rules of law place an equal burden on all internationally recognized countries, and demand that citizens not be targeted deliberately, that civilian casualties not be maximized nor that strikes be carried out against invalid military targets. Israel has not merely met this standard but has exceeded it in every conflict it has carried out over the past several decades.

Is a missile strike on a refugee camp potentially killing hundreds of people in order to 'take out' a single Hamas commander, not maximising civilian casualties? Is a missile strike a proportionate response to take out an individual as opposed to other means of extraction.

A missile strike is proportionate if the area is used to store munitions, yes. More generally the goal of the operation is (or should be) not to take out a single commander, but to take out the organization which made that commander possible, which in this case is the government of the quasi-sovereign Gaza Strip.

Its military response has been led by its democratically elected government; its diplomatic response has obtained the support of most of the large democratic nations on Earth (the US, India, and western Europe); Latin America has been more equivocal, I guess. (This includes your country, which makes it strange that you are saying this; I sort of understand where Red Velvet is coming from, as a Brazilian, but "the world stands against Israel" feels much stranger coming from a Scotsman.) I don't know if you're expecting unanimity, but you shouldn't be.

'Standing against Israel' is not my sentiment when my criticism of Israel is rooted in an appeal againset democratic backsliding. That was the case prior to October 7th.

I do empathise with the Palestinian victims of Israel's response and the dismissiveness of their plight as nothing more than collateral damage, rather than as victims of human suffering and humanitarian crisis. Which was also the case before October 7th.

I think the issue is that if you insist democratic governments fight in a way that creates no collateral damage, then you both incentivize their opponents to act in ways that maximize it (as I have mentioned before the practice of using human shields has spread outside of the Middle East to the Donbass) and you also prevent them from ever winning. I think Palestine as a political entity should lose, so my position is that this sort of thing is necessary. (The response I'll get from Horus et al will be "hurr durr you think no one can criticize Israel's conduct of the war". No, I think criticizing Israel's conduct of the war is perfectly fair. If you have intelligence saying that this particular place was not a real target, or even if you've read trustworthy media accounts saying so, then that's fine. But I think "Israel should not strike militarized places if there are many civilians there" is a call for its defeat, and it isn't a position I have much respect for.)

Which doesn't mean you shouldn't intelligently empathize with the victims. But historically the way wars stop having victims is that one side or the other wins, and this specific genre of empathy is what is directly motivating actors to try to maximize casualties. It helps neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli people, but only the political entity of Palestine.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Okay, forget zero collateral damage, is there any hard limit you're willing to put on the tolerance for civilian casualties? If a single Hamas fighter is walking through a crowded market is it okay to drop a bomb on him and kill hundreds of people? If thousands are crowded in a hospital and you think that there could be munitions stored under the hospital, do you drop a bunker buster on the hospital and kill them all? If there are still civilians evacuating the combat area do you authorize tanks to just open fire on any vehicle while moving to attack the area you ordered an evacuation through to prevent the possibility that Hamas could drive a car into a tank? Are they in the clear to start dropping sarin or other chemical or biological weapons if they think it could reduce IDF casualties? Where do you draw the line? Because the one drawn by international law has been shown total contempt from both the IDF and its supporters.

and the incredible thing is that despite the unprecedented brutality and destruction it isn't even clear that the IDF has achieved any meaningful military benefit from their heavy hand. They've had zero impact on the ability of Hamas to continue launching rocket attacks and despite turning large parts of Gaza City into Stalingrad have had minimal progress with IDF ground forces constantly hounded by ambushes. Hamas fighters still freely travel through the supposedly destroyed tunnels to supposedly destroyed firing positions from which they launch their supposedly neutralized rockets with about as much as ease as one would have expected as if the IDF didn't bother with the preliminary bombing campaign at all. The only clear result of their terror bombings has been to totally destroy their reputation and credibility across the world and to produce a parade of easy propaganda for Hamas.

[Pericles]

Okay, forget zero collateral damage, is there any hard limit you're willing to put on the tolerance for civilian casualties? If a single Hamas fighter is walking through a crowded market is it okay to drop a bomb on him and kill hundreds of people? If thousands are crowded in a hospital and you think that there could be munitions stored under the hospital, do you drop a bunker buster on the hospital and kill them all? If there are still civilians evacuating the combat area do you authorize tanks to just open fire on any vehicle while moving to attack the area you ordered an evacuation through to prevent the possibility that Hamas could drive a car into a tank? Are they in the clear to start dropping sarin or other chemical or biological weapons if they think it could reduce IDF casualties? Where do you draw the line? Because the one drawn by international law has been shown total contempt from both the IDF and its supporters.

Bang on. In any war there will be some civilian casualties, but armies must not be indiscriminate-it is a crime to launch attacks that kill far more civilians than can be justified by the military benefit.

[Logical]

They should be considerate of their choices because most of the West has chosen to back to them unconditionally. Anytime a tinpot dictator massacres civilians they can now point to the Israeli example and say "terrorist".

[MT Treasurer]

I remain convinced that Hamas must be ousted militarily, but the longer this goes on the more convinced I become that Israel is either unable or unwilling to conduct this war in a manner that is either ethical or lawful. Unfortunately I don't really know what can be done.

Western leaders calling out this blatant, entirely predictable, genocidal mass slaughter and threatening to end military aid for Israel rather than unconditionally promising an addtional >$10 billion?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Okay, forget zero collateral damage, is there any hard limit you're willing to put on the tolerance for civilian casualties? If a single Hamas fighter is walking through a crowded market is it okay to drop a bomb on him and kill hundreds of people? If thousands are crowded in a hospital and you think that there could be munitions stored under the hospital, do you drop a bunker buster on the hospital and kill them all? If there are still civilians evacuating the combat area do you authorize tanks to just open fire on any vehicle while moving to attack the area you ordered an evacuation through to prevent the possibility that Hamas could drive a car into a tank? Are they in the clear to start dropping sarin or other chemical or biological weapons if they think it could reduce IDF casualties? Where do you draw the line? Because the one drawn by international law has been shown total contempt from both the IDF and its supporters.

and the incredible thing is that despite the unprecedented brutality and destruction it isn't even clear that the IDF has achieved any meaningful military benefit from their heavy hand. They've had zero impact on the ability of Hamas to continue launching rocket attacks and despite turning large parts of Gaza City into Stalingrad have had minimal progress with IDF ground forces constantly hounded by ambushes. Hamas fighters still freely travel through the supposedly destroyed tunnels to supposedly destroyed firing positions from which they launch their supposedly neutralized rockets with about as much as ease as one would have expected as if the IDF didn't bother with the preliminary bombing campaign at all. The only clear result of their terror bombings has been to totally destroy their reputation and credibility across the world and to produce a parade of easy propaganda for Hamas.

All of this is correct and great points, but sadly the sort of thing that's been heavily obscured in this thread because of derailment and back and forth bickering. Although things might get better with a main culprit removed...

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Saw on the news that the Houthis (One of the three factions controlling parts of Yemen at present) have "declared war" on Israel. Is this real, and if so, does it matter? Yemen isn't exactly close to Israel.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I had the distinct impression that the evening news in Germany were noticably less pro-Israel tonight than it used to be two weeks ago... but given Germany's "special relationship" with Israel they also seemed to go out of their way to make a point in separating the country from its current leadership. Party line is that an unpopular Netanyahu is sitting on a political ejection seat and he's attempting to save his skin by being a tough war-time premier.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Saw on the news that the Houthis (One of the three factions controlling parts of Yemen at present) have "declared war" on Israel. Is this real, and if so, does it matter? Yemen isn't exactly close to Israel.

Bibi will surrender immediately

[All Along The Watchtower]

Saw on the news that the Houthis (One of the three factions controlling parts of Yemen at present) have "declared war" on Israel. Is this real, and if so, does it matter? Yemen isn't exactly close to Israel.

They launched missiles at Israel that were intercepted over the Red Sea.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yemens-houthis-enter-mideast-fray-hardening-spillover-fears-2023-10-31/

[Meclazine for Israel]

Benjamin Netanyahu

This Is A Time For War

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzC6C_xuzOd/

He referenced Pearl Harbour and September 11.

Given the US firebombed 200,000 Japanese in Tokyo inside a week, the Gaza civilian figures of 8,000, if you apply the "Biden truth" factor, more like 4-6,000, the Israeli's have been extremely restrained.

Hamas are the ones killing civilians by forcing them to stay in Northern Gaza in a War Hamas started.

Without the civilians, Hamas cannot use the media coverage to protect them.

If Israel were barbaric, they would end Hamas inside 24 hours. But you would have 200,000 casualties.

Meanwhile in Sydney

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cyu10VqrhVx/

Why is it always the Muslim man going mad at society and threatening and terrorising other people in public?

It's never the Jewish man in Sydney disturbing the peace. It's never the Jewish man slitting throats or taking hostages in Sydney.

Australian's will be seriously looking at immigration policy after these events associated with this War.

We simply don't want to import Islamic hatred into our culture.

Then you take this behaviour up 100 times in Israel, I can totally understand why Israel want Hamas gone.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

The strike on the refugee camp by the IDF is horrific and unacceptable. Shame on Netanyahu and his ilk.

Atrocities do not justify atrocities.

[Horus]

The strike on the refugee camp by the IDF is horrific and unacceptable. Shame on Netanyahu and his ilk.

Atrocities do not justify atrocities.

I don't think a Gantz or Lapid led gov would've done anything differently here.