[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread

Yeah, a "tragedy mistake" that was obviously a consequence of an illegal Nazi policy of shooting everything that moves.
Its fully legitimate to criticise that and its up to wrongdoers to take a responsibility.
Soldiers may got an order to eliminate everyone in the enemy military camp, but that doesnt make them Nazis
Its more on the intelligence to provide the possibility of citizens. Otherwise, there will be another backlash.
It's not a "false flag" and you are not understanding if using this term. The Hamas attack was real, but the argument Inno is making is that most of the killing was done not by Hamas but by the IDF as it recaptured the villages. I think there is overwhelming evidence of Hamas committing atrocities on October 7th, so I don't go as far as Inno goes here, but I also think there is strong reason to believe that some Israelis (probably a fairly small % of the civilians killed in the attack) in the kibbutzim were indeed killed by friendly fire, "collateral damage" as the acceptable phrase is, as the IDF used heavy firepower including from tanks and helicopters to recapture the territory. This has indeed been reported on by Israeli media, though it has been dismissed as "disinformation" by the Zionist propaganda machine.
Thank you for clarification, honestly I did not understood Innonu claims. I read victims criticism against IDF regards attack, but shooting them wasnt part of it and Hamas took the claim.
In my understanding, Palestinians did not try to hold the positions, it was just rape, kill, kidnap and going home. And IDF was not able to react for several hours.
 
Soldiers may got an order to eliminate everyone in the enemy military camp, but that doesnt make them Nazis

No, that's actually what it does. Do you not understand that the Nazis intentionally conflated civilians with guerrillas to justify their crimes?

In my understanding, Palestinians did not try to hold the positions, it was just rape, kill, kidnap and going home. And IDF was not able to react for several hours.


By its own account, the IDF killed many hundreds of "terrorists" outside of Gaza in the days after the 7th.
 
Palestinian journalists, unfortunately, have been priority targets for the israeli military, and most of them have been murdered already. Together with their families, in a very terroristic tactic. This was part of a strategy of hiding what was going on.

Inside israel proper the censorship is not tight. Those stories about the israeli army murdering their own, and in fact many of those in tha famous festival, as they returned to the positons they had abandoned or lost around Gaza and shot anything that moved, were not supressed. This lenghty story aggregates several reports from israeli press in October. But while available in english it is itself in "alternative media", with a tiny viewership. So the vast majority of the population of western countries just saw the propaganda prepared by the israeli government to justify its attack on Gaza and its planned extermination war.

Inside Israel the atrocity propaganda also played a part in mobilizing most of israeli society for this war. The reports to the contrary were not outright censored but were effectively dorwned. And this majorioty that was convinced to support the war have not yet turned aside from it, nor will without a military defeat. Because after wilfully engaging in genocide no one wants to confess that the "threat" which justified it was false. That the sub-humans being exterminated were in fact humans after all. They need to keep believing their excuses.

Thus, the continued talk about atrocities by Hamas is the point on which this genocide is supported. It is harmful to keep repeating that propaganda as if it were true. There was at attack, civilians were killed, and the goal of the attack was taking live hostages which itself is contrary to the "laws of war". But there was no planned massacre by Hamas, and the israeli army behaved far more disgracefully on that day than Hamas. It had a vast military superiority and no need to murder everyone in their path, but did it anyway. Out of habit more likely than out of explicit orders, I fear. It is a rotten institution.
First at all, I am glad that you acknowledge that Hamas attacked Israel. From your previous posts I was confused.
I can imagine a lot of stories. The general problem for me is that Israeli media are free and Israeli government seems to be obviously suprised by attack, making all the confused fuss.
This attack also contradicted current government´s politics.
The Israeli society is very different from Czech or Portuguese, when there were first calls for help the ordinary Israelis were taking up their uniforms.
Its possible that there were not planned massacres. It just make it happened when you are drugged up terrorist and people are not ready to give up to be kidnapped to Gaza.
 
No, that's actually what it does. Do you not understand that the Nazis intentionally conflated civilians with guerrillas to justify their crimes?
By its own account, the IDF killed many hundreds of "terrorists" outside of Gaza in the days after the 7th.
Its IMHO PR. Palestinians did not hold the ground, there were not any sieges. The most were killed probably by kibbutzes guards.
Survivors claimed to not getting help for hours.
 
Last edited:
Reports are c 1400 people were killed in Israel on October 7. About 200 of these were Hamas gunmen and 1200 Israelis/Foreign Nationals . How many of these were killed by Hamas and how many were killed by Israelis we actually don't know and its unlikely we're going to find out anytime soon, leaving posters to quote any number they like to support their viewpoint.

Its true that if Hamas had not attacked very few if any of these people would have died that day. Its also true that Israel would have found it difficult to justify their subsequent campaign in Gaza if the Hamas attack had not taken place.
 
Solidarity between Palestinian and Indigenous activism and causes is like, literally a whole thing. Was a big feature at Invasion/Survival Day rallies this year.
Yeah it's really sad, non-violent indigenous populations have to attach themselves to terrorists just to get attention in their own countries
 
Yeah it's really sad, non-violent indigenous populations have to attach themselves to terrorists just to get attention in their own countries

They're being actively bombed to death
in a concerted attempt to wipe them out dude, what's going on with you?

Just really sad that an ongoing genocide is occurring and the only thing you care about wrt it is your ability to pop off rejoinders
 
Last edited:
They're being actively bombed to death
in a concerted attempt to wipe them out dude, what's going on with you?

Just really sad that an ongoing genocide is occurring and the only thing you care about wrt it is your ability to pop off rejoinders

They bombed Nazis to death as well after they attacked.

If a terrorist strike killed 40000 in USA or 8000 in UK (that's the approx proportional numbers btw) you would have a war (9/11 was 3000 iirc).

There's virtually no state on the planet that would not go to war if able vs a government that enabled an attack like that.

WW1 one dude got shot.

Ironically you're simping for a group that murders people like you.
 
The recent posts in this thread display exactly the sort of attitude I read about in an article recently: Israeli violence is always framed as its right to defend itself or retaliate, it is simultaneously entirely reasonable and at the same time inevitable, "yeah, Israel is committing warcrimes, what did you expect?", while Palestinian violence is always unprovoked, unreasonable, savage, barbaric, the unwashed hordes at the gate of civilization.

It may be safely assumed that those upholding said attitude would not give a feck about the fact that in 2019 Israeli soldiers fired on unarmed Gazan protesters, killing hundreds and injuring thousands. Israel faced zero consequences.

Or they would similarly not give a feck about the fact that the Gazan population is made up approximately of 60-70% refugees displaced from Palestine proper, that Israel and Egypt impose a blockade on Gaza, that Israel imposes an apartheid system in the West Bank, expands illegally into internationally-recognised Palestinian territory, militarily protects illegal settlers from reprisals by the natives (one of the reasons the IDF response to 7 Oct was so slow was due to the fact that a large force was at the West Bank overseeing another expansionist drive), that Israel routinely arrests and detains Palestinians without charge, that Israel evicts Palestinians and directly and indirectly destroys their homes, that Israel destroys olive groves, that Israeli officials routinely harras Palestinians, and that the entire state and non-state apparatus is focused on making life hell for the Palestinians in a million different ways, all with the end of preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state, all without zero consequences.

But Israel always has the right to respond, but Palestinians never have the right to resist.
 
View attachment 687708
Solidarity between Palestinian and Indigenous activism and causes is like, literally a whole thing. Was a big feature at Invasion/Survival Day rallies this year.

Given the commonality of displacement, societal destruction and settlement it's pretty easy to see the parallels of what Israel is trying to do now, and then histories and ongoing consequences of various other genocidal colonial states. Zionism was pretty explicit about the colonial objectives when it first started getting going. There's little doubt places like my country are seen as a model for the future of the Israeli project.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01...d-palestinian-flags-flying-together/103390932
Did you see Nova Peris was in Israel supporting Zionists, because she thinks *they* are the dispossessed?
 
They bombed Nazis to death as well after they attacked.

If a terrorist strike killed 40000 in USA or 8000 in UK (that's the approx proportional numbers btw) you would have a war (9/11 was 3000 iirc).

There's virtually no state on the planet that would not go to war if able vs a government that enabled an attack like that.

WW1 one dude got shot.

Ironically you're simping for a group that murders people like you.

You're doing it as well

That sure is a lot of words and whataboutism to justify the ongoing slaughter and starvation of Palestinians
 
Last edited:
If a terrorist strike killed 40000 in USA or 8000 in UK (that's the approx proportional numbers btw) you would have a war (9/11 was 3000 iirc).

What this dumb argument fails to take into account is that to be actually comparable to Israel the context of such an attack would have to be that roughly 170 million of the US's 330 million would have to be under a brutal occupation with no end in sight and continuous settlement in the occupied area.

Under such conditions a terrorist attack killing 40,000 would not be so surprising. And the solution, as in Israel, would be to end the occupation, not to kill millions more of the occupied.
 
Something else I missed over the weekend. @REDY might find this of interest, r.e. attacks on other religions (and yes, the bombing is Israeli).

(Bethlehem)

1711976135416.png
 
If a terrorist strike killed 40000 in USA or 8000 in UK (that's the approx proportional numbers btw) you would have a war (9/11 was 3000 iirc).
I like this maths because it implies shooting the pope is an enormous mass casualty event
 
Or, in other words, dissolve itself entirely?
Let's start with the 67 borders and see if the Israelis can behave themselves
 

Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu protests put political divides back on show​

Israel's deep political divisions are back on public display.

They were put to one side for a while, as shock and national unity followed the 7 October attacks by Hamas - but six months later, thousands of protesters are once again on Israel's streets.

The war has turbocharged their determination to unseat Israel's longest-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

In Jerusalem, police used skunk water - a foul-smelling substance fired from water cannons - to clear protesters who had blocked the Begin Boulevard, the city's major north-south highway.

Well-worn slogans demanding his resignation and early elections were amplified by newer ones calling for an immediate deal to free about 130 Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. An unknown number of them are presumed dead.

The big fear of their families and friends, as well as the protesters, is that many more will die the longer the war drags on without a deal.

On Sunday evening, as thousands packed the broad avenues around the Israeli parliament, Katia Amorza - who has a son serving in the Israeli army in Gaza - put down her megaphone for a moment.

"Since eight this morning, I'm here. And now I'm telling Netanyahu that I would be glad to pay one way ticket, first class, for him to go out and not come back anymore.

"And I'm telling him also to take with him all those people that they put in the government that he chose one by one, the worst, the worst that we have in our society."

A rabbi crossed the road past Katia and her megaphone. It was Yehudah Glick, who campaigns for Jewish prayer in the area Israelis call the Temple Mount, the site in Jerusalem of Islam's third holiest mosque, al Aqsa.

Rabbi Glick said the protesters have forgotten that their real enemy is Hamas, not prime minister Netanyahu.

"I think he's very popular. And that's what aggravates these people. I think these people, are not willing to forgive the fact that for so long they've been demonstrating against him and he's still in power.

"And I'm calling upon them to demonstrate, to come and demonstrate, speak loud and clear what they feel, but to be careful not to cross the very thin line between democracy and anarchy."

The protesters, and Mr Netanyahu's critics in countries that otherwise support Israel, believe the enemies of democracy are already in his government, a coalition that depends on the support of ultranationalist Jewish parties.

Among them is the Religious Zionism party, led by the finance minister Bezalel Smotrich. One of its MPs, Ohad Tal, said it was "naïve" to believe anything other than more military pressure on Hamas would free the hostages.

"You don't think Hamas will bring back so easily the hostages in a deal, release everybody and then will allow us to, you know, to kill all the terrorists that we would release in such a deal... It's not as simple.

"If there was a button that you can press and bring back all the hostages and make everything okay, every Israeli would press this button. But it's not as easy as you may think."

Benjamin Netanyahu used to say he was the only one who could keep his country safe. Many Israelis believed him.

He said that he could manage the Palestinians, settle Jews on the occupied land they want for a state, without offering the concessions and making the sacrifices necessary for a peace deal.

All that changed on 7 October last year when Hamas stormed through the border wire.

Many Israelis hold him responsible for the security lapses that allowed Hamas to attack Israel with such devastating effect.

Unlike his security chiefs, who rapidly issued statements admitting they had made mistakes, Mr Netanyahu has never admitted any responsibility.

That infuriates the thousands who blocked streets in Jerusalem on Sunday evening.

Israelis must be something like 40 years old at least to remember a time when Benjamin Netanyahu was not a dominant figure in their country's politics.

After emerging as an eloquent spokesman for Israel at the United Nations, his first stint as prime minister came after a narrow victory in 1996 on a platform opposing the Oslo peace process.

Like the current American plan to make peace in the Middle East, the Oslo deals were built around the idea that allowing Palestinians to establish an independent state alongside Israel was the only hope of ending a century of conflict between Arabs and Jews over control of the land between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.

Mr Netanyahu has been a consistent opponent of a Palestinian state. He has contemptuously dismissed the US strategy of backing for Palestinian independence as part of a "grand bargain" to remake the Middle East.

His critics here say his strident rejection of President Joe Biden's plans for governance in Gaza after the war is a tool to secure the continued support of Israel's extreme right wing.

One of the protesters outside the Knesset was David Agmon, a retired Brigadier General in the Israeli army. He ran the prime minister's office when Mr Netanyahu was first elected.

"It's the biggest crisis ever since 1948. I'll tell you something else. I was the first chief of staff for Netanyahu in 1996, so I know him, and after three months I decided to leave. Because I realised who he is - a danger to Israel.

"He doesn't know how to take decisions, he is afraid, the only thing he knows is to speak. And of course, I saw he depends on his wife, and I saw his lies. And after three months I told him, 'Bibi, you don't need aides, you need a replacement.' And I left."

While the protesters were still on the streets, Mr Netanyahu ruled out early elections and repeated his determination to mount a new offensive against Hamas forces in Rafah.

His record as a political survivor and formidable campaigner means that even if his opponents get their wish for early elections, his dwindling band of devoted followers believe he might even win.

Israelis are not divided about destroying Hamas. That war aim has overwhelming support.

But the way the war is being handled, and the failure to rescue or free all the hostages, is putting Benjamin Netanyahu under career-ending pressure.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68705643
 
Top Bottom