Israel-Hamas War — Page 2

Highland Guy said: "Once again, correcting the Subject to "Israel-Hamas War"."

If you're trying to be precise, you should say "Right Wing Israeli Government-Hamas War." It's no more correct to conflate the Israeli people with Netanyahu's nonsense than it is to conflate the Palestinian people with the Hamas murderers.

The Subject of this thread is correct as originally posted.

Updated On: 10/23/23 at 12:35 PM

Jay, you're very passionate about this. I appreciate your side of this issue, it has somewhat clarified some things.

Gaza has no fuel. Today the UN aid workers have no choice but to stop. Sick babies will have their incubators turned off.

Netanyahu has literally refused to take a phone call from the UN Secretary General.

Shameful.

The OP gets to title the thread, not every subsequent post by every commenter. Priorities, please.

Since false accusations have been levelled against me, please consider just who is the bully. I started a thread named "How evil have American presidents been?", which a certain user soon re-named as LET US HONOR OUR PRESIDENTS. I started another one named "Bette Midler Transphobic, Oh No", soon to be called BETTE MIDLER IS AN LGBT ALLY. Other examples can be found. Beyonce springs to mind. I started a thread on climate change, a certain user starts a thread on the glory of flying in airplanes.

I am just relaying pure fact here, in the hope that this person might see sense. No doubt it will be construed as bullying, however unfairly. If there are rules on changing subject titles, which I don't believe there is, they should be applied equally.

I agree that certain political decisions in Israel have not helped the situation and there is a long history. But ultimately Israel tried to give Gaza back and couldn’t because Hamas was elected to govern. And when this organisation is very clear and open that their mission is to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, it puts Israel in a tough spot. And it’s impossible to negotiate with people that aren’t looking for peace.


Given these circumstances I find it reasonable that after Hamas has initiated war they must act and disarm Hamas. I don’t know how they can do that in Gaza. Maybe not cutting the water and electrify and food off etc. is the first thing they shouldn’t have done. But it is a tricky situation I feel. If the US had a terrorist attack that killed 50,000 people tomorrow (I think that’s the figure people try to say as a proportion of population to emphasise how significant the October 7 attack was) how would the US act?


A ceasefire at this point feels unreasonable, but maybe a change in strategy to further minimise civilian casualty in Gaza seems wise as I can feel the public opinion slowly shifting now.

I understand now it might be slightly disingenuous to say Hamas 'is' democratically elected given how much time has passed and may no longer really represent the people, but as I understand it in 2006 they 'were' (and either way I don't think it changes the outcome of danger to Israel whether they were elected or not, although it might reflect some sentiment in the population at the time at least).

Similar, if I understand it, it was Olmert not Netanyahu that initiated the blockade of the Gaza Strip in response to Hamas governing Gaza. And so did Egypt too who saw similar risks so it's not as if this was just Israel. Also, there was no halting in the desettlment of Gaza if I recall - they completely withdrew in 2005 and remain that way. The only change was the blockade to control the borders.

The reason I'm saying this is because I think there is a slightly disingenuous recall of where, how and why Israel 'occupied' Palestine. The occupation of the West Bank is often different in terms of strategy and reasons than Gaza - but people simplify it as "Israel occupying Palestine' as if the scenario is the same across the region.

I'm afraid to look at the news.

Just in case anybody unfairly reads that as anti-semitism, I'd like to say that there are holocaust survivors who agree with me. Any rise in animosity toward Jews is 100% wrong. Most Israeli citizens hate Netanyahu, now more than ever before.

Anthony Blinken's opinion piece in the Washington Post. What do we think?

I guess I appreciate the sentiment, in a way, but it goes nowhere near far enough.

"Defending Israel is essential. So is aiding civilians in Gaza"

That's nice, Secretary... but do the civilians of Gaza not also deserve to be "defended"? What is the difference between "aid" and "defense"? Murder is murder is murder is murder.

What has been achieved over the last month? Are the Israeli hostages any safer? How many of the thousands of dead Palestinian children were terrorists?

Noam Chomsky describes the history of Washington's support for Israel as not based on morality, but on "Christian Zionism". A biblical fetish that goes back further than even Israeli Zionism. Another motive is the legacy of colonization. Superiority complexes from the Anglosphere. "Settler colonial" societies mentality, where elimination of native populations is no big deal. Subconscious culture. Then of course there is the military aspect. Geopolitics. Strategy. He says back in 1948, when Israel was founded, there was a split between the State Dept. and the Pentagon. State was reticent to support further Israeli conquests, concerned about possible refugee crises. Whereas the Pentagon only considered military advantages. To this day, America keeps military munitions in Israel. Which is why they are so easy to transfer to Netanyahu. Israel is considered a military offshoot of the US, an army base almost.

Updated On: 11/7/23 at 05:55 PM

Today I am thankful that I am not in Gaza.

Updated On: 11/25/23 at 06:10 PM