The Israel Palestine problem solving thread

Is it possible or easy to shift the other post here?

andy-mac wrote:
Roadkill wrote:
[snip]
quote "Fact is Israel is just as guilty as causing death a Hamas (a lot more women and children actually), they can just do it from afar with missiles and aircraft."

Figures don't lie.

The truth is better than figures in this case.

And… it is ironic… I got a mate called Gazza down the coast ;)

I can pay my own way tho…
One thing is, he can spell ;)

And also doesn’t pretend he knows shit when he doesn’t ;)
- he knows about the long history in the middle east region going back thousands of years before israel was even a thing…

Ironic ;)

Road Dill has dug himself a hole bigger than a hamas underground tunnel.

the contortions required by some to maintain a position...

impressive

(from a bendover and take it perspective)

Why don't you take yourself off to a gay nightclub in Gaza, Owen?
You'll soon find that 'It's raining men' has an entirely different meaning, you deluded twat. pic.twitter.com/j7IFsosNsJ

— Littlest HOMOsexual (@HomoLittlest) October 16, 2023

I don’t think anyone here has been Louder or more vociferous than burleigh when commenting on child abuse and rape etc etc.

Yet here he is excusing Hamas and calling for calm as a bunch or murdering raping child killing terrorist torturers go about their mission in life.

On ya Burl’s.

No surprise burleigh has nothing to contribute…. Other than snide immature insults from the sideline. Way out of his depth here in this discussion

Hamas has released footage of them killing unarmed IDF personnel, carrying around kidnapped babies after killing their parents, force marching kids into Gaza as human shields…. All released by Hamas, who now cry about war crimes and unfair treatment from Israel.

There is a rant from one of the Hamas masterminds posted, who some people on Swellnet want Israel to negotiate with. saying they all hate the Jews and the west as they love life and they (Hamas) love death as it is their duty to martyr themselves.

Food for thought....

This is a transcript of a recorded podcast.
Sam Harris
The Sin of Moral Equivalence

I want to say a few things about recent events in Israel. I’m sure I will do future podcasts about this and speak with a wide range of relevant experts. But, for the moment, I would like to say something brief that stands a chance of being useful, as we watch the initial expressions of support for Israel begin to decay, as it wages war in Gaza and perhaps beyond.

As many of you know, I spent years talking about the clash, as I see it, between Western civilization and Islam. Specifically, I’ve spoken and written about the connection between the actual doctrines of Islam and jihadist violence. Of course, this violence has fallen out of the news in recent years, especially since the collapse of the Islamic State. Even I have stopped thinking much about it, but I’ve been under no illusion that the problem has gone away. Those of you who have been following my work for 20 years know that I’ve said everything I have to say on this topic, ad nauseam. And I’m sure I’ll periodically just repeat myself for the rest of my life—because eruptions of jihadist violence, and the attendant secular moral confusion about it, will be with us for generations.

However, I don’t want to rehash any of my criticism of Islam here. I’ll just briefly remind you of what I believe, which is that there is no possibility of living in peace with jihadists. So, whether we want to admit it or not, we are perpetually at war with them. And we must win a war of ideas with everyone, both within the Muslim world and outside it, who is confused about that—and there are legions of the confused. And there is no place on Earth where the truth about jihadism is more obvious or excruciating, and moral confusion about it more reprehensible, than Israel today.

But leaving all of that to one side, for the moment I’d like to make a very simple point, that really shouldn’t be at all controversial—because it doesn’t prejudge any of the questions that people might disagree about. You don’t have to agree with me about Islam, or about the role it plays in inspiring conflict. The point I’m making now says nothing about the causes of the recent violence in Israel—and yet it cuts through all the arguments and pseudo-arguments that attempt to paint some moral equivalence between Israel and its enemies, or to justify the actions of Hamas as though they were a response to Israeli provocations—to the growth of settlements, or the daily humiliation of living under occupation. Incidentally, there has been no occupation of Gaza since 2005, when Israel withdrew from the territory unilaterally, forcibly removing 9000 of its own citizens, and literally digging up Jewish graves. The Israelis have been out of Gaza for nearly 20 years. And yet they have been attacked from Gaza ever since.

But even a statement like that wades too far in controversy. I want you to step back… Whatever you think about the origins of this conflict, whatever you believe about the role that religion plays here (or doesn’t play), whatever you think about colonialism, or globalism, or any other ‘ism, whether you’re a fan of Noam Chomsky or Samuel Huntington, you should be able to acknowledge the following claims to be both descriptively true and ethically important.

At this moment in history, there are people and cultures that harbor very different attitudes about violence and the value of human life. There are people and cultures that rejoice, positively rejoice—dancing in the streets rejoicing—over the massacre of innocent civilians; conversely there are people and cultures that seek to avoid killing innocent civilians, and deeply regret it when they do—and they occasionally prosecute and imprison their own soldiers when they violate this modern norm of combat.

There are people and cultures who revel in the anguish of hostages and prisoners of war—who will parade them before cheering mobs, and often allow them to be assaulted, or raped, or even murdered. They will desecrate their bodies in public, and all of this carnage is a cause for jubilation. Conversely, there are people and cultures who find such barbarism revolting—and, again, would be inclined to prosecute anyone on their own side who took part in it.

In short, there are people and cultures who revel in war crimes—and who do not hide these crimes or their celebration of them but, rather, proudly broadcast their savagery for all the world to see. Conversely, there are people and cultures who have given us the concept of a war crime as a sacred prohibition—and as a safeguard in the ongoing project of maintaining the moral progress of civilization.

One point to concede, and this will absorb all the nuance and nonsense that is now percolating in the brains of many listeners: It is, of course, true that we in the West have been on the wrong side of these dichotomies in the past. Most Western armies, including Israel’s, have at one time or another been guilty of war crimes. And if you go back far enough, all of human conflict was just a litany of war crimes. And you don’t have to go back all that far, in fact, to find large pockets of Western culture that were morally indistinguishable from what we now see in much of the Muslim world. If you have any doubt about this, study the photos of white mobs celebrating the lynchings that occurred in the American South in the first half of the 20th century: where seemingly whole towns—thousands of men, women and children—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people—who considered themselves good Christians—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them in their places of business.

So I’m not claiming that there are permanent differences between groups of people. I’m talking about the power of ideas that happen to be ascendant at any given time and place. I’m talking about beliefs and whole worldviews that come into being in one culture and have yet to come into being in others. The point, of course, is that if we recognize the monstrosities of the past, we should recognize the monstrosities of the present, and acknowledge that at this moment in human history not every group has the same ethical norms governing its use of violence. For whatever reason. Perhaps religion has nothing to do with it.

Consider just one of these norms: Whenever an armed conflict breaks out, some groups will use human shields, and others will be deterred, to one degree or another, by their use. To be clear, I’m not talking about the taking of hostages from the opposing side for the purpose of using them as human shields. That is appalling, and it is now happening in Gaza, but it is separate crime. I’m talking about something far more inscrutable—it’s astounding, really, that it happens at all—I’m talking about people who will strategically put their own noncombatants, their own women and children, into the line of fire so that they can inflict further violence upon their enemies, knowing that their enemies have a more civilized moral code that will render them reluctant to shoot back, for fear of killing or maiming innocent noncombatants. If anywhere in this universe cynicism and nihilism can be found together in their most perfect forms, it is here.

Jihadists use their own people as human shields routinely. Hamas fires rockets from hospitals and mosques and schools and other sites calculated to create carnage if the Israelis return fire. There were cases in the war in Iraq where jihadists literally rested the barrels of their guns on the shoulders of children. They blew up crowds of their own children in order to kill US soldiers who were passing out candy to them. Conversely, the Israeli army routinely warns people to evacuate buildings before it bombs them.

Of course, during times of war, it common to dehumanize one’s enemy, to describe them as barbarous and evil. And it is natural for ethical and educated people to distrust such politically-charged language. But pay attention: I’m describing concrete behaviors—behaviors that occur on only one side of this conflict.

Just consider how absurd it would be to reverse the logic of human shields in this case: Imagine the Israelis using their own women and children as human shields against Hamas. Recognize how unthinkable this would be, not just for the Israelis to treat their own civilians in this way, but for them to expect that their enemies could be deterred by such a tactic, given who their enemies actually are.

Again, it is easy to lose sight of the moral distance here—which is strange. It’s like losing sight of the Grand Canyon when you are standing right on the edge of it. Take a moment to actually do the cognitive work: Imagine the Jews of Israel using their own women and children as human shields. And then imagine how Hamas, or Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda, or ISIS, or any other jihadist group would respond. The image you should now have in your mind is a masterpiece of moral surrealism. It is preposterous. It is a Monty Python sketch where all the Jews die.

Do you see what this asymmetry means? Can you see how deep it runs? Do you see what it tells you about the ethical difference between these two cultures?

There are not many bright lines that divide good and evil in our world, but this is one of them.

Of course, there is much more to talk about when considering the ethics of war and violence. And there’s much more to be confused about. For instance, as this war proceeds, many people will consider the deaths of noncombatants on the Palestinian side to be morally equivalent to the kids who were tortured and murdered at the peace concert by Hamas, or to the hostages who may yet be murdered and their murders broadcast on social media. But they’re not. There is a difference between collateral damage—which is, of course, a euphemism for innocent people killed in war—and the intentional massacre of civilians for the purpose of maximizing horror.

Simply the counting the number of dead bodies is not a way of judging the moral balance here. Intentions matter. It matters what kind of world people are attempting to build. If Israel wanted to perpetrate a genocide of the Palestinians, it could do that easily, tomorrow. But that isn’t what it wants. And the truth is the Jews of Israel would live in peace with their neighbors if their neighbors weren’t in thrall to genocidal fanatics.

In the West, we have advanced to a point where the killing of noncombatants, however unavoidable it becomes once wars start, is inadvertent and unwanted and regrettable and even scandalous. Yes, there are still war crimes. And I won’t be surprised if some Israelis commit war crimes in Gaza now. But, if they do, these will be exceptions that prove the rule—which is that Israel remains a lonely outpost of civilized ethics in the absolute moral wasteland that is the Middle East.

To deny that the government of Israel (with all of its flaws) is better than Hamas, to deny that Israeli culture (with all of its flaws) is better than Palestinian culture­ in its attitude toward violence, is to deny that moral progress itself is possible. If most Americans are better than their slaveholding ancestors, if most Germans today are better than the people who herded Jews into gas chambers, if the students protesting this war on your college campus—who are so conscientious that they lose sleep over crimes like “cultural appropriation” or using the wrong pronouns—if they are better than the racists and religious lunatics that inevitably lurk somewhere in their family trees—then we have to recognize that there is no moral equivalence now, between Israel and her enemies.

https://m.

It was only a few months ago I thought saw a glimmer of hope for the Middle East . Encouraged by China , Russia and India , the Iranians were talking to the Saudi's ( at Foreign Minister level ) and they were talking to the Israeli's .
Hamas had/has help , from someone , to do this !
Someone who was happy with the status quo .
I want to know who !

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Reasoning-From-the-Scriptures/Jews/

Udo, there’s some explanation of Opti’s defense of Israelis in there. Even though he’d have to wear a hazmat suit if he visited to catch all the spit.

Rabbits68 wrote:

Food for thought....

This is a transcript of a recorded podcast.
Sam Harris
The Sin of Moral Equivalence

I want to say a few things about recent events in Israel. I’m sure I will do future podcasts about this and speak with a wide range of relevant experts. But, for the moment, I would like to say something brief that stands a chance of being useful, as we watch the initial expressions of support for Israel begin to decay, as it wages war in Gaza and perhaps beyond.

As many of you know, I spent years talking about the clash, as I see it, between Western civilization and Islam. Specifically, I’ve spoken and written about the connection between the actual doctrines of Islam and jihadist violence. Of course, this violence has fallen out of the news in recent years, especially since the collapse of the Islamic State. Even I have stopped thinking much about it, but I’ve been under no illusion that the problem has gone away. Those of you who have been following my work for 20 years know that I’ve said everything I have to say on this topic, ad nauseam. And I’m sure I’ll periodically just repeat myself for the rest of my life—because eruptions of jihadist violence, and the attendant secular moral confusion about it, will be with us for generations.

However, I don’t want to rehash any of my criticism of Islam here. I’ll just briefly remind you of what I believe, which is that there is no possibility of living in peace with jihadists. So, whether we want to admit it or not, we are perpetually at war with them. And we must win a war of ideas with everyone, both within the Muslim world and outside it, who is confused about that—and there are legions of the confused. And there is no place on Earth where the truth about jihadism is more obvious or excruciating, and moral confusion about it more reprehensible, than Israel today.

But leaving all of that to one side, for the moment I’d like to make a very simple point, that really shouldn’t be at all controversial—because it doesn’t prejudge any of the questions that people might disagree about. You don’t have to agree with me about Islam, or about the role it plays in inspiring conflict. The point I’m making now says nothing about the causes of the recent violence in Israel—and yet it cuts through all the arguments and pseudo-arguments that attempt to paint some moral equivalence between Israel and its enemies, or to justify the actions of Hamas as though they were a response to Israeli provocations—to the growth of settlements, or the daily humiliation of living under occupation. Incidentally, there has been no occupation of Gaza since 2005, when Israel withdrew from the territory unilaterally, forcibly removing 9000 of its own citizens, and literally digging up Jewish graves. The Israelis have been out of Gaza for nearly 20 years. And yet they have been attacked from Gaza ever since.

But even a statement like that wades too far in controversy. I want you to step back… Whatever you think about the origins of this conflict, whatever you believe about the role that religion plays here (or doesn’t play), whatever you think about colonialism, or globalism, or any other ‘ism, whether you’re a fan of Noam Chomsky or Samuel Huntington, you should be able to acknowledge the following claims to be both descriptively true and ethically important.

At this moment in history, there are people and cultures that harbor very different attitudes about violence and the value of human life. There are people and cultures that rejoice, positively rejoice—dancing in the streets rejoicing—over the massacre of innocent civilians; conversely there are people and cultures that seek to avoid killing innocent civilians, and deeply regret it when they do—and they occasionally prosecute and imprison their own soldiers when they violate this modern norm of combat.

There are people and cultures who revel in the anguish of hostages and prisoners of war—who will parade them before cheering mobs, and often allow them to be assaulted, or raped, or even murdered. They will desecrate their bodies in public, and all of this carnage is a cause for jubilation. Conversely, there are people and cultures who find such barbarism revolting—and, again, would be inclined to prosecute anyone on their own side who took part in it.

In short, there are people and cultures who revel in war crimes—and who do not hide these crimes or their celebration of them but, rather, proudly broadcast their savagery for all the world to see. Conversely, there are people and cultures who have given us the concept of a war crime as a sacred prohibition—and as a safeguard in the ongoing project of maintaining the moral progress of civilization.

One point to concede, and this will absorb all the nuance and nonsense that is now percolating in the brains of many listeners: It is, of course, true that we in the West have been on the wrong side of these dichotomies in the past. Most Western armies, including Israel’s, have at one time or another been guilty of war crimes. And if you go back far enough, all of human conflict was just a litany of war crimes. And you don’t have to go back all that far, in fact, to find large pockets of Western culture that were morally indistinguishable from what we now see in much of the Muslim world. If you have any doubt about this, study the photos of white mobs celebrating the lynchings that occurred in the American South in the first half of the 20th century: where seemingly whole towns—thousands of men, women and children—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.

Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people—who considered themselves good Christians—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them in their places of business.

So I’m not claiming that there are permanent differences between groups of people. I’m talking about the power of ideas that happen to be ascendant at any given time and place. I’m talking about beliefs and whole worldviews that come into being in one culture and have yet to come into being in others. The point, of course, is that if we recognize the monstrosities of the past, we should recognize the monstrosities of the present, and acknowledge that at this moment in human history not every group has the same ethical norms governing its use of violence. For whatever reason. Perhaps religion has nothing to do with it.

Consider just one of these norms: Whenever an armed conflict breaks out, some groups will use human shields, and others will be deterred, to one degree or another, by their use. To be clear, I’m not talking about the taking of hostages from the opposing side for the purpose of using them as human shields. That is appalling, and it is now happening in Gaza, but it is separate crime. I’m talking about something far more inscrutable—it’s astounding, really, that it happens at all—I’m talking about people who will strategically put their own noncombatants, their own women and children, into the line of fire so that they can inflict further violence upon their enemies, knowing that their enemies have a more civilized moral code that will render them reluctant to shoot back, for fear of killing or maiming innocent noncombatants. If anywhere in this universe cynicism and nihilism can be found together in their most perfect forms, it is here.

Jihadists use their own people as human shields routinely. Hamas fires rockets from hospitals and mosques and schools and other sites calculated to create carnage if the Israelis return fire. There were cases in the war in Iraq where jihadists literally rested the barrels of their guns on the shoulders of children. They blew up crowds of their own children in order to kill US soldiers who were passing out candy to them. Conversely, the Israeli army routinely warns people to evacuate buildings before it bombs them.

Of course, during times of war, it common to dehumanize one’s enemy, to describe them as barbarous and evil. And it is natural for ethical and educated people to distrust such politically-charged language. But pay attention: I’m describing concrete behaviors—behaviors that occur on only one side of this conflict.

Just consider how absurd it would be to reverse the logic of human shields in this case: Imagine the Israelis using their own women and children as human shields against Hamas. Recognize how unthinkable this would be, not just for the Israelis to treat their own civilians in this way, but for them to expect that their enemies could be deterred by such a tactic, given who their enemies actually are.

Again, it is easy to lose sight of the moral distance here—which is strange. It’s like losing sight of the Grand Canyon when you are standing right on the edge of it. Take a moment to actually do the cognitive work: Imagine the Jews of Israel using their own women and children as human shields. And then imagine how Hamas, or Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda, or ISIS, or any other jihadist group would respond. The image you should now have in your mind is a masterpiece of moral surrealism. It is preposterous. It is a Monty Python sketch where all the Jews die.

Do you see what this asymmetry means? Can you see how deep it runs? Do you see what it tells you about the ethical difference between these two cultures?

There are not many bright lines that divide good and evil in our world, but this is one of them.

Of course, there is much more to talk about when considering the ethics of war and violence. And there’s much more to be confused about. For instance, as this war proceeds, many people will consider the deaths of noncombatants on the Palestinian side to be morally equivalent to the kids who were tortured and murdered at the peace concert by Hamas, or to the hostages who may yet be murdered and their murders broadcast on social media. But they’re not. There is a difference between collateral damage—which is, of course, a euphemism for innocent people killed in war—and the intentional massacre of civilians for the purpose of maximizing horror.

Simply the counting the number of dead bodies is not a way of judging the moral balance here. Intentions matter. It matters what kind of world people are attempting to build. If Israel wanted to perpetrate a genocide of the Palestinians, it could do that easily, tomorrow. But that isn’t what it wants. And the truth is the Jews of Israel would live in peace with their neighbors if their neighbors weren’t in thrall to genocidal fanatics.

In the West, we have advanced to a point where the killing of noncombatants, however unavoidable it becomes once wars start, is inadvertent and unwanted and regrettable and even scandalous. Yes, there are still war crimes. And I won’t be surprised if some Israelis commit war crimes in Gaza now. But, if they do, these will be exceptions that prove the rule—which is that Israel remains a lonely outpost of civilized ethics in the absolute moral wasteland that is the Middle East.

To deny that the government of Israel (with all of its flaws) is better than Hamas, to deny that Israeli culture (with all of its flaws) is better than Palestinian culture­ in its attitude toward violence, is to deny that moral progress itself is possible. If most Americans are better than their slaveholding ancestors, if most Germans today are better than the people who herded Jews into gas chambers, if the students protesting this war on your college campus—who are so conscientious that they lose sleep over crimes like “cultural appropriation” or using the wrong pronouns—if they are better than the racists and religious lunatics that inevitably lurk somewhere in their family trees—then we have to recognize that there is no moral equivalence now, between Israel and her enemies.

This for me is probably the best post in this discussion, everybody should read this.

yes, very good from sam harris

but but but...

owen jones and his band of rainbow alliance fascist anti-fascists would say...

israel are fascists

colonisers

british colonisers are fascists too

your a fascist

sam harris is a fascist

and israeli protestors are nazi's (not even joking... saw the vid yesterday)

they may also say palestians have not been enabled to develope such a moral standing...

(they may be right... but the jihadi's don't want to - sam's point...)

and for balance...

https://x.com/timand2037/status/1713460018400436474?s=20

there's little hope whilst both sides are behaving like such rock apes

That was awesome. Sam Harris, as usual, delivers the goods.

stunet wrote:

A better world starts here...

In a thousand years, they'll stumble across the swellnet forums and realise, there was a better way for humanity that was sadly bypassed by the non surfing masses :-P

;)

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/the-art-of-deception-how-israel-uses-h...

Interesting that in the 10 wars currently being fought in the world they are all Islamic Jihad wars except for Putins stuff up.
And, even when Islamist’s have no one to fight they fight each other.

Haha flopti…
You coward. How many adversaries are of another religion ?

- and if you go down this road you can present all the conflicts created by christians as well… the most recent being Iraq and Afghanistan, then start researching everything from the crusades to the displacement and genocide of indigenous cultures through missionary intervention and colonial settlement. There is more than ten right there… but enjoy your ignorance and cherry picking hypocrisy ;)

https://m.

https://m.

;)

https://m.

https://m.

Looks like this thread is going to where threads got to die on the back page, pity there is some really interesting footage coming out from this.

‘The most successful war seldom pays for its losses’

https://m.

‘War is an ultimate cost that helps mostly the greedy’

https://m.

‘Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom’

https://m.

‘The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government’

https://m.

Explosion hits hospital in Gaza.

Now lets be real.

Whats far more likely?

1. It was Israel that doesnt just fire rockets randomly and can pin point targets with jet fighters and have zero reason to hit a hospital, doing so only favours Hamas and muppets like Jelly who will go see who the bad guys are, the terrorist are the good guys.

2. Hamas hitting their own hospital so Western media and more muppets in the West rally against Israel and put pressure on them to prevent them destroying Hamas.

But yeah totally misguide illogical fools like Jelly are going to buy right into Hamas lies and keep on supporting the terrorist and keep on spreading all his anti semitic tripe.

Haha ;)

Keep inventing ya bullshit…

You are fixated on hamas and simply blind to hasbara.
Where is the evidence numpty ?

https://m.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-67119233

Hundreds killed in hospital escalating everything.

Reuters:

"the Israeli military blamed on a failed rocket launch by a Palestinian militant group..

"the Israeli military denied responsibility for the blast at the Al-Ahli al-Arabi hospital in Gaza City, suggesting the hospital was hit by a failed rocket launch by the enclave's Palestinian Islamic Jihad military group.

""An analysis of IDF operational systems indicates that a barrage of rockets was fired by terrorists in Gaza, passing in close proximity to the Al Ahli hospital in Gaza at the time it was hit," a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces said.

""Intelligence from multiple sources we have in our hands indicates that Islamic Jihad is responsible for the failed rocket launch which hit the hospital in Gaza," the spokesperson added."

And:

"Hamas stores ammunition in schools, puts missile launchers adjacent to mosques, sets up command centers in hospitals, and generally bases its operations in densely populated civilian neighborhoods."

— Senior Fellow Douglas Feith in @TheFPhttps://t.co/28yeU667Br

— Hudson Institute (@HudsonInstitute) October 17, 2023

The truth is simple. Iran is at war with Israel and with the U.S. It does not seek compromise or accommodation. It wants what it says it wants: a holocaust in Israel and the destruction of the U.S., writes @wrmead https://t.co/twyEippiBw

— Wall Street Journal Opinion (@WSJopinion) October 17, 2023

as per Ray Dalio's recent article.

So much can go wrong in urban war.

Blame will be apportioned as suits the various agendas.

Be careful jumping in too soon with opinions.

In the Russian / Ukraine conflict it was easy for the media - Putin could be safely blamed for everything without bothering to even check or pause for reflection - even if it was likely to be a misfired Ukrainian shell (as happened).

Not so easy in the Gaza. Journos mostly treading carefully in this conflict.

There is actual blame for an event which is often hidden in the fog but then there is the reflected blame which can take on a life of its own.

Few scenario's.

1. Hamas launch rockets from hospital site as they launch from places like this to use civilian's as a shield, Israel fuck up and hit rocket launch point.

2. Hamas launch rockets from hospital site or next too and screw up.

3. Hamas target a hospital on purpose to claim Israel did it, to gain more support from Western media and your Jellys in an attempt to put pressure on Israel to easy off or stop getting rid of Hamas.

Id be putting ever dollar i have its number three.

There is also other glaringly obvious scenarios ;)

1. id has no idea
2. id thinks he knows shit and just makes stuff up
3. id has no idea

There is overwhelming evidence for this ;)

- when id jumps to conclusions it’s backed up by assumptions only.
It’s another symptom of going full …… ;)

He’s not retired, but he did spend years in construction… he is a ……

https://m.

Jelly, who do you think bombed the hospital?

indo-dreaming wrote:

Few scenario's.

1. Hamas launch rockets from hospital site as they launch from places like this to use civilian's as a shield, Israel fuck up and hit rocket launch point.

2. Hamas launch rockets from hospital site or next too and screw up.

3. Hamas target a hospital on purpose to claim Israel did it, to gain more support from Western media and your Jellys in an attempt to put pressure on Israel to easy off or stop getting rid of Hamas.

Id be putting ever dollar i have its number three.

4. Israel erroneously bombed the hospital.

5. Israel deliberately bombed the hospital.

hamas vs hasbara

Roadkill is all good with the hospital bombing according to his post yesterday.

burleigh wrote:

Roadkill is all good with the hospital bombing according to his post yesterday.

A child's response as usual.

It was a western baptist Christian hospital.
Islamic jihad Hamas would have no regrets bombing that one to get people accusing Israel.
Hamas kill their own to get the gullible world onside and are even blocking evacuations from the area Israel want to clean up.
It would be nice if this were a discussion thread without dumping dozens of edited videos on it.

My message to Palestinians and their supporters in Australia:https://t.co/9pBjMeL8df

— James Paterson (@SenPaterson) October 17, 2023

Thanks gsco, nice to see some wise young men in our political system…very encouraging talk from him.

Optimist wrote:

It was a western baptist Christian hospital.
Islamic jihad Hamas would have no regrets bombing that one to get people accusing Israel.
Hamas kill their own to get the gullible world onside and are even blocking evacuations from the area Israel want to clean up.
It would be nice if this were a discussion thread without dumping dozens of edited videos on it.

Some form of proof would be required to make this post anything more than uninformed, inflammatory bigotry.

There are two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Religious bigotry influences your unsubstantiated posts.

indo-dreaming wrote:

Explosion hits hospital in Gaza.

Now lets be real.

Whats far more likely?

1. It was Israel that doesnt just fire rockets randomly and can pin point targets with jet fighters and have zero reason to hit a hospital, doing so only favours Hamas and muppets like Jelly who will go see who the bad guys are, the terrorist are the good guys.
.

If you are saying Israel doesn't just fire rockets randomly, are you accepting that so far Israel has pin pointed and killed more than 3000 people, at least 750 of them children, wounded 12 800, blown up a UN school that was being used as evacuation shelter? Is that the kind of pin point accuracy you are saying they have? Not to mention that they have cut off food, water, and power to a point that the UN today say they fear people are dehydrating to death. Is it really that impossible to imagine, after declaring they will wipe Palestinians off the map and reduce Gaza to rubble, that they would also fire rockets at a hospital?

lowinfo probably going into bat for Israel, as one of his "citizen journalist" heroes, a man/cretin that's been in the IDF and is a noted zionist, Avi Yemini, is over there atm, providing the most biased pro-Israel coverage imaginable.

Hiccups wrote:

lowinfo probably going into bat for Israel, as one of his "citizen journalist" heroes, a man/cretin that's been in the IDF and is a noted zionist, Avi Yemini, is over there atm, providing the most biased pro-Israel coverage imaginable.

Yet, you're watching. So maybe, just maybe you're enabling the man you dislike.
You still throw like a girl.

burleigh wrote:

Hiccups wrote:

lowinfo probably going into bat for Israel, as one of his "citizen journalist" heroes, a man/cretin that's been in the IDF and is a noted zionist, Avi Yemini, is over there atm, providing the most biased pro-Israel coverage imaginable.

Yet, you're watching. So maybe, just maybe you're enabling the man you dislike.
You still throw like a girl.

Avi is a convicted woman beater, and you're trying to insult me by denigrating women. Looks like little fishfood has a misogynistic streak. What a shock.

beginning to be some proof now?:

Washington Post: Bombed Gaza hospital owned by a branch of the Anglican Communion

AFR: Gaza's only Christian-led medical facility:

Also see news.com.au live coverage.

I watched a quick clip of avi the other day asking for donations to buy him some armoured clothing and helmet , said that it’s very expensive and could you please help him out ? The bloke had no shame when it comes to constantly asking for money to fund whatever he’s doing, court cases , air travel, armoured clothing. Fark what a legend .

"The issue isn’t whether the historical harms over decades or centuries justify the attacks. The point is that nothing could justify such attacks. The correct response to supporters of Hamas is to ask, is there any action they could take that would lead you to side against them for that action?"

https://thelivingfossils.substack.com/p/power-part-iv-who-sides-with-baby

dandandan wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

Explosion hits hospital in Gaza.

Now lets be real.

Whats far more likely?

1. It was Israel that doesnt just fire rockets randomly and can pin point targets with jet fighters and have zero reason to hit a hospital, doing so only favours Hamas and muppets like Jelly who will go see who the bad guys are, the terrorist are the good guys.
.

If you are saying Israel doesn't just fire rockets randomly, are you accepting that so far Israel has pin pointed and killed more than 3000 people, at least 750 of them children, wounded 12 800, blown up a UN school that was being used as evacuation shelter? Is that the kind of pin point accuracy you are saying they have? Not to mention that they have cut off food, water, and power to a point that the UN today say they fear people are dehydrating to death. Is it really that impossible to imagine, after declaring they will wipe Palestinians off the map and reduce Gaza to rubble, that they would also fire rockets at a hospital?

Gee, you don’t care for accuracy much.