Biden says US to carry out airdrops of aid into Gaza in coming days

[Toddsterpatriot]

You would also be mad at those who bombed your home and killed your family, and destroyed your city.

To be fair, Hamas was hiding in that house in Gaza.

You never responded to the "dead per bomb" math.

 

[Coyote]

Nearly three in four Palestinians think the barbaric massacre against Jews on October 7th was the correct action to take.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/

From the same poll:

Only 10 percent of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank believe that Hamas committed war crimes on October 7 when it invaded Israel and attacked border communities, a recent poll found.

By comparison, 95 percent of Palestinian respondents polled in late November to early December agreed that Israel had perpetrated such atrocities, with 85 percent saying they had not seen any footage from “international news outlets” of Hamas atrocities. Only 1 percent of West Bank residents believed the Palestinian terror group massacred civilians.

The study, led by Khalil Shikaki of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, found that an overwhelming majority of the more the 1,200 Palestinians polled – 82 percent of West Bankers and 57 percent of Gazans – supported the 10/7 “offensive” given its outcome so far.

“It is worth noting that there are significant differences between the attitudes of the residents of the West Bank compared to those of the Gaza Strip, in terms of the ‘correctness’ of the Hamas’ decision (and other matters), as the attitudes of Gazans tend to show a greater degree of skepticism about that decision,” Shikaki wrote in the report published on Wednesday. “It is clear from the findings that believing in the ‘correctness’ of Hamas’ decision does not mean support for all acts that might have been committed by Hamas fighters on October 7.”

 

[Coyote]

To be fair, Hamas was hiding in that house in Gaza.

You never responded to the "dead per bomb" math.

Because I don’t think it is relevant. For example there is a significant amount of unexploded ordinance on the ground.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because I don’t think it is relevant. For example there is a significant amount of unexploded ordinance on the ground.

Now is it not relevant? If Israel intended to kill a lot of civilians, wouldn't it be easy to kill a bunch with every single bomb? I could have killed more than 30,000 civilians on the first day if I had Israel's military. Don't you see that?

 

[Shusha]

Twice I’ve typed a lengthy response to this and it disappeared before I could post it, I will have to come back to it.

Oh no!

 

[Shusha]

I agree with what is in bold, but not with the level of destruction we are now seeing.

So the goal is to eliminate Hamas, but only if we can eliminate Hamas with what(?) fewer than 1000 civilian casualties? 5000? 10000? Is there a magic number, that if we just hit that number, Israel walks away and waits for Hamas to attack again in even more violent and terrible ways? If Hamas rapes and murders 4000 innocent Israeli civilians next time (and they promise there will be a next time, a millionth time), does the "permitted level of destruction" go up? If Hamas and Hezbollah and the "West Bank" Palestinians all get their shit together and attack at the same time, does Israel get a few extra thousand permissible destruction points?

This whole accounting is approaching it from the wrong direction. The goal is the goal. You don't put out 3/4 of a fire. It's either out or it's not out.

Look, I'm not trying to minimize the scale of the harm and devastation. It is a terrible, terrible thing. But the solution is not to hamstring Israel. It is to support Israel (the victim of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history) and do everything we can to limit the incidental harm. Which means:

Hold those responsible accountable: Hamas, the people of Gaza who support the attacks, UNRWA, Iran, Qatar, and anyone else providing funding and training, the UN for their failures and lack of fair treatment to Israel.

Insist that the hostages are returned immediately. And put some teeth behind it.

Pressure Egypt to provide a safe evacuation corridor (yes, AND pressure Israel for return if that becomes the next issue, but don't prevent safety for civilians on the assumptions.)

Provide aid in real, meaningful ways. With policing and distribution. With actual boots on ground Ensure that organizations like IRC are actually doing their jobs.

The MESSAGE to terrorists should be unequivocal and absolute -- you will never get what you want using terror. The world has to agree on that.

As far as ideology? Per the poll and article I posted, as of July, a significant number of Gazans wanted done with Hamas and more peaceful relations.

A significant number? Not significant enough to stop it. Not significant enough to get the hostages home. Not significant enough to start a water and electricity uprising. Not enough.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why do you say I am lying? I specifically stated in my post that the poll was three months before Hamas’ attack.

The poll you reference is in the middle of Gaza being bombed by Israel with soaring civilian casualties. Do you not think that influences opinion?

Your post refuted your own claim that the Palestinians people are separate from Hamas, but you still repeated this false claim that you, yourself, had just refuted. Your poll showed that even in times of relative peace half or more of Palestinians supported Hamas, which means they support endless war with Israel until Israel is destroyed.

 

[Coyote]

So the goal is to eliminate Hamas, but only if we can eliminate Hamas with what(?) fewer than 1000 civilian casualties? 5000? 10000? Is there a magic number, that if we just hit that number, Israel walks away and waits for Hamas to attack again in even more violent and terrible ways? If Hamas rapes and murders 4000 innocent Israeli civilians next time (and they promise there will be a next time, a millionth time), does the "permitted level of destruction" go up? If Hamas and Hezbollah and the "West Bank" Palestinians all get their shit together and attack at the same time, does Israel get a few extra thousand permissible destruction points?

This whole accounting is approaching it from the wrong direction. The goal is the goal. You don't put out 3/4 of a fire. It's either out or it's not out.

A couple of points here. First off, “if the Palestinians ”get their shit together” ignores the long standing role Israel has also played in the events that culminated in Oct 7th, this is not a unilateral conflict. You can say Israel, as a nation, has a right to defend itself, its citizens and its borders (though what that is is another contentious issue.) But no nation, including Israel, has an unlimited, unrestricted right to do so. Russia used a version of this argument to invade Ukraine and to indirectly redefine its own borders. Is that legit?

Given we agree on this (I think?), if not on borders, how unrestricted should it be? Is it black and white? Digital or analogue?

There is a continuum of choices. At one end, Israel does nothing, maybe a few raids, more containment, slap on the hand. At the other - nuclear weapons, genocide. Between those two extremes are a lot of choices.

When it comes to the goals of the war, is there any point where the price of meeting that goal becomes unacceptable? If so, how would you make that determination? If not, in other words no restrictions, how would you justify it and apply it to every nation in conflict?

Look, I'm not trying to minimize the scale of the harm and devastation. It is a terrible, terrible thing. But the solution is not to hamstring Israel. It is to support Israel (the victim of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history) and do everything we can to limit the incidental harm. Which means:

I cannot unconditional support the actions of any nation, that dangerous precedent.

Hold those responsible accountable: Hamas, the people of Gaza who support the attacks, UNRWA, Iran, Qatar, and anyone else providing funding and training, the UN for their failures and lack of fair treatment to Israel.

AND Israel.

Insist that the hostages are returned immediately. And put some teeth behind it.

What teeth?

Pressure Egypt to provide a safe evacuation corridor (yes, AND pressure Israel for return if that becomes the next issue, but don't prevent safety for civilians on the assumptions.)

750,000 Palestinians either fled or expelled from Israel during the war and barred from ever returning creating a huge refugee crisis and a tragedy that defined the Palestinian people ever since. Now Israel wants to repeat it and force two million people into Egypt. Pressuring Israel to allow them to return is worthless once they are gone. No nation wants two million refugees because Israel wants them gone. There is zero trust from any parties here.

Provide aid in real, meaningful ways. With policing and distribution. With actual boots on ground Ensure that organizations like IRC are actually doing their jobs.

Agree.

The MESSAGE to terrorists should be unequivocal and absolute -- you will never get what you want using terror. The world has to agree on that.

Agree, but likewise you cannot continue to disenfranchise the Palestinians in terms of rights, autonomy, land and opportunities. You can’t continue that side of the status quo that lead to this tipping point.

A significant number? Not significant enough to stop it. Not significant enough to get the hostages home. Not significant enough to start a water and electricity uprising. Not enough.

Disagree.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

With this kind of attitude Nazi Germany wouldn't have been defeated.

Islamism deserves no less humiliation, and it's quiet simple.
Loss of Islamist control over land is all it takes.

The Middle East can be a beautiful place,
without the yoke of Arab imperialism.

The Middle East is a bleeding sore that will continue bleeding. It is the only sure thing you can count on. Nobody's hands are clean.
You want a defense of Israel..without a critique of Israel. Not going to happen. They do own some responsibility for their current position.
Perhaps if they had enforced the laws and treaties they had signed? Perhaps if they had disallowed the illegal West Bank settlements? Perhaps if they had respected a right of return for the Palestinian refugees?
They wish a Jewish state..yet stand foursquare against a Palestinian one.
However..this is all water under the bridge now--Just as those who rule HAMAS wanted--You know, Iran? This entire situation is win/win for them thus far.
As the call to Jihad gets louder.
The Fundie Christians all nodding their heads
It is the Accelerationist's best bet~

 

[Shusha]

A couple of points here. First off, “if the Palestinians ”get their shit together” ignores the long standing role Israel has also played in the events that culminated in Oct 7th

Hard disagree. This is victim-blaming, pure and simple as it gets. There is NO justification for the horrors endured by the Israeli and Jewish people on October 7. There is NO justification for further attacks like this against Israel and the Jewish people by Gaza Palestinians, "West Bank" Palestinians, or by Hezbollah. There is nothing about this attack that can legitimize it, regardless of whatever "context" you want to put around it or the background for the conflict between these two peoples. Rape is not resistance. Torture is not resistance. Abducting children is not resistance. Burning Jews is not resistance.

Israel is not complicit in the crimes against humanity perpetrated on her people.

And the international community needs to stop using this language of mutual responsibility for terrorism (especially as this seems to be uniquely applied to Israel).

, this is not a unilateral conflict.

This, I agree with. And it is important to understand the difference between this agreement and my hard nope above.

You can say Israel, as a nation, has a right to defend itself, its citizens and its borders (though what that is is another contentious issue.)

Israel has an obligation to defend itself, its citizens, and its borders. The international community has an obligation to defend the sovereignty of every state, and the safety and security of all humanity against terrorism. The UN hasn't even condemned the atrocity committed against Israel (on Israeli sovereign territory, at least according to the UN).

And you know my position on borders. There is only one possible legal position to take. The only reason it appears to be contentious is because the international community has taken the position that law can be twisted, changed, dismantled when it comes to Israel. (Incidentally, I listened to Ralf Wilde's speech at the ICJ which outlined his version of Palestine's legal position, and quite frankly, it is almost comically flawed. So outrageous, I have a hard time taking it seriously.)

But no nation, including Israel, has an unlimited, unrestricted right to do so.

Wait, you aren't arguing that Israel is acting in unlimited, unrestricted ways are you? Because that seems more than a little silly. Every nation has a right (obligation) to defend itself within the parameters of the law. That is what Israel is at least attempting to do, from my point of view. And I know you disagree. And we can discuss that. But, let's not accuse Israel of "unlimited and unrestricted", that's just misinformation and demonization.

Russia used a version of this argument to invade Ukraine and to indirectly redefine its own borders. Is that legit?

Wait, did Ukraine cross international boundaries into the territory of Russia (another State) and commit slaughter with intent to genocide the people of Russia? No, it didn't. You are trying to create an equivalency where there is none. The only reason I can see that you would do so, is to try to equate Israel with Russia as the "party in the wrong", at best.

Given we agree on this (I think?), if not on borders, how unrestricted should it be? Is it black and white? Digital or analogue?

There is a continuum of choices. At one end, Israel does nothing, maybe a few raids, more containment, slap on the hand. At the other - nuclear weapons, genocide. Between those two extremes are a lot of choices.

We agree. I think we have a few points of disagreement on informational facts and assumptions. Such as: civilians are harmed in a strike on a particular building. My assumption is that there was a clear military target in that location. And your assumption is that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians.

I think we also disagree on where the "stop" point is on the continuum. I have a much higher tolerance for short-term harm now in the pursuit of a larger and more lasting net benefit for everyone. And we can discuss this further.

When it comes to the goals of the war, is there any point where the price of meeting that goal becomes unacceptable?

That's an interesting question. My first reaction was, "of course"! But I also weigh in other factors. What is the likelihood of achieving the goal? The higher that is, the more tolerant I am of the cost.

If so, how would you make that determination? If not, in other words no restrictions, how would you justify it and apply it to every nation in conflict?

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to that. It's a multi-factor equation. Here are some of the factors I would consider:

• scale of the inciting incident
• the actors contributing to the incident
• the past practices of the actors
• the stated goals of the actors
• the resources of the actors
• the difficulties posed by the conditions
• the attainability of the military goal

I'm sure there is more. It's complicated. But I think Israel's stated goals (bring the hostages home, dismantle Hamas, destroy the war infrastructure, deradicalize Gaza) are moral goals.

I cannot unconditional support the actions of any nation, that dangerous precedent.

Me neither. I haven't done that.

AND Israel.

Hard no again. Israel is not complicit in the atrocity committed against her. That is all, entirely, without question, on Hamas and those who supported Hamas in committing it. And that is a wide, large net.

750,000 Palestinians either fled or expelled from Israel during the war and barred from ever returning creating a huge refugee crisis and a tragedy that defined the Palestinian people ever since. Now Israel wants to repeat it and force two million people into Egypt. Pressuring Israel to allow them to return is worthless once they are gone. No nation wants two million refugees because Israel wants them gone. There is zero trust from any parties here.

I see this as an interesting reversal of your position. You appear to support a reduction in harm and loss of life as the most important issue. Yet, when we can move people to a place of absolute safety and save lives, you retreat? I'm seeing this as hypocritical. Maybe you can clarify further.

Agree, but likewise you cannot continue to disenfranchise the Palestinians in terms of rights, autonomy, land and opportunities. You can’t continue that side of the status quo that lead to this tipping point.

The people of Gaza were self-governing, with full autonomy and a potential for sovereign independence. They HAD autonomy (else they would not have been able to do what they did). Gaza needs to take responsibility for itself, and needs to stop blaming everything on Israel. Put down your weapons. Choose water.

 

[Shusha]

A significant number? Not significant enough to stop it. Not significant enough to get the hostages home. Not significant enough to start a water and electricity uprising. Not enough.

Disagree.

What do you disagree with?

The significant number of Gaza Palestinians who do not support Hamas and its actions were, as point of FACT, not enough to stop the attack, not enough to get the hostages home, not enough to prevent all the infrastructure built around war, not enough to ensure clean water for their families, not enough.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Their choices in ordinance, the unwillingness to switch to a more targeted approach, hitting civilian targets that either do not contain Hamas militants or where the civilian casualties far outweigh Hamas casualties, restricting/inhibiting aid, cutting off food and water.

What Israel has done in terms of allowing some aid in or attempting to reduce civilian casualties has been reluctant and due to extreme pressure from it’s allies .

So no. I no longer believe Israel has much concern for the lives of Palestinian civilians.

Not a single word of truth in your post. The IDF has lawyers travelling with the troops who have to certify an attack complies with the requirements of International Humanitarian Law before the attack can be ordered. This is why allegations like yours have no substance.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A couple of points here. First off, “if the Palestinians ”get their shit together” ignores the long standing role Israel has also played in the events that culminated in Oct 7th, this is not a unilateral conflict. You can say Israel, as a nation, has a right to defend itself, its citizens and its borders (though what that is is another contentious issue.) But no nation, including Israel, has an unlimited, unrestricted right to do so. Russia used a version of this argument to invade Ukraine and to indirectly redefine its own borders. Is that legit?

Given we agree on this (I think?), if not on borders, how unrestricted should it be? Is it black and white? Digital or analogue?

There is a continuum of choices. At one end, Israel does nothing, maybe a few raids, more containment, slap on the hand. At the other - nuclear weapons, genocide. Between those two extremes are a lot of choices.

When it comes to the goals of the war, is there any point where the price of meeting that goal becomes unacceptable? If so, how would you make that determination? If not, in other words no restrictions, how would you justify it and apply it to every nation in conflict?







I cannot unconditional support the actions of any nation, that dangerous precedent.





AND Israel.





What teeth?




750,000 Palestinians either fled or expelled from Israel during the war and barred from ever returning creating a huge refugee crisis and a tragedy that defined the Palestinian people ever since. Now Israel wants to repeat it and force two million people into Egypt. Pressuring Israel to allow them to return is worthless once they are gone. No nation wants two million refugees because Israel wants them gone. There is zero trust from any parties here.



Agree.



Agree, but likewise you cannot continue to disenfranchise the Palestinians in terms of rights, autonomy, land and opportunities. You can’t continue that side of the status quo that lead to this tipping point.




Disagree.

Again, nothing but nonsense in your pos. Hamas launched it attack on Oct 7 because it is committed to the destruction of Israel.

 

[Coyote]

Shusha

I’m going to address part of your post here.

couple of points here. First off, “if the Palestinians ”get their shit together” ignores the long standing role Israel has also played in the events that culminated in Oct 7th

Shusha:

Hard disagree. This is victim-blaming, pure and simple as it gets.

No. It is not. And that is every time some one tries to hold a Israel accountable. It is not by any means justification, but you are using as a tool to stifle discussion.

Did Israel deserve what Hamas did? Of course not.

Is Israel collectively responsible for what Hamas did? Of course not. Those actions are on Hamas and Hamas only.

Likewise, are the Palestinians collectively responsible for what Hamas did? No. Hamas is responsible.

But this did not happen in a vacuum and people keep trying to treat it like it did on the Israeli side but not on the Palestinian side. This is the culmination of decades of an unresolved conflict and maintaining an unsustainable “status quo” on borders, occupation, two states, basic rights, legitimizing and promoting the use violence against civilians, corruption and corrupt leadership that fails it’s people. It did not happen in a vacuum and just like you can’t ignore the actions of the Palestinians in getting to this point, neither can you ignore the actions of Israel.

That is not victim blaming, it is recognizing this has been a long standing canker and you can’t keep pretending it will go away. This will keep happening unless the fundamental problems that created it get addressed.



Shusha:

There is NO justification for the horrors endured by the Israeli and Jewish people on October 7. There is NO justification for further attacks like this against Israel and the Jewish people by Gaza Palestinians, "West Bank" Palestinians, or by Hezbollah. There is nothing about this attack that can legitimize it, regardless of whatever "context" you want to put around it or the background for the conflict between these two peoples. Rape is not resistance. Torture is not resistance. Abducting children is not resistance. Burning Jews is not resistance.

Correct. Not single one of those things is resistance. Attacks against a civilian population is not “resistance”, it is terrorism or even war crimes.

And no justifications are being made.

So you are going to ignore the elephant in the room and label attempts to discuss it “justification” rather than because addressing it? Because if we don’t address these underlying issues, violence will keep on happening particularly if there is no political outlet for resolution available. That is the status quo.

And Israel isn’t the only that has had to look at how its political policies might have contributed. To some degree they have - demanding accountability from their government for massive failures of security, for a flawed policy that sought to “contain” Hamas in Gaza while simultaneously feeding it and allowing it to flourish.

Shusha:

And the international community needs to stop using this language of mutual responsibility for terrorism (especially as this seems to be uniquely applied to Israel).

Does it apply uniquely to Israel? I don’t think so.

But there is something that does: a unique absolution. A free pass. An endless occupation. A population kept under a brutal military justice system (compared to the civil system) indefinitely.

 

[Coyote]

Shusha

I see this as an interesting reversal of your position. You appear to support a reduction in harm and loss of life as the most important issue. Yet, when we can move people to a place of absolute safety and save lives, you retreat? I'm seeing this as hypocritical. Maybe you can clarify further.

Is it?

I look at underlying motivations. Israel had a political position paper advising on possible long term solutions to the “Palestinian problem” in Gaza. It specifically and cynically addressed this as one of several “solutions” to be deliberately marketed to the international community as “humanitarian”.

What places of “absolute safety” really exist for several million people that can’t be replicated in the parts of Gaza Israel has already cleared? Why would another country (and many of these countries already have large numbers of refugees from the Syrian civil war and other conflicts) take such a number of refugees when based on Israeli history, it is unlikely they will be allowed to return to their homeland after the conflict? Israel was reaching to other countries like the Congo, to take Palestinians for payment. The Congo is one of the poorest countries, still engulfed in a 50(?) civil war where atrocities such as what Hamas committed are a regular occurrance. That is safe?

Refugee camps are typically not nice places to live, consider the Rohinga in Bangladesh. Safety is relative, conditions can harsh and disease ridden, often the host population can be hostile and unwelcoming particularly when resources are scarce.

 

[Shusha]

It is not by any means justification, but you are using as a tool to stifle discussion.

Me? Stifling discussion? Did you not see my extremely lengthy post? Do you not recognize that you and I hold the most wordy wordy of conversations here?

 

[Coyote]

Me? Stifling discussion? Did you not see my extremely lengthy post? Do you not recognize that you and I hold the most wordy wordy of conversations here?

That is true, and I appreciate the fact you do so in a sea of predictable bumper sticker responses. But when attempts at discussing the underlying issues keep getting labeled as “victim blaming” it does tend to stifle that particular avenue of discussion.

 

[Shusha]

That is true, and I appreciate the fact you do so in a sea of predictable bumper sticker responses. But when attempts at discussing the underlying issues keep getting labeled as “victim blaming” it does tend to stifle that particular avenue of discussion.

I don't think it shuts down the on-going conversation about the underlying conflict. We both acknowledge that underlying conflict and have been willing to discuss it on those terms.

 

[Shusha]

But there is something that does: a unique absolution. A free pass. An endless occupation. A population kept under a brutal military justice system (compared to the civil system) indefinitely.

See? We talk so much we have to break it down into smaller sections so we can cope.

I don't see it that way AT ALL. (I know, not surprising.) I see it as Israel being utterly out of options, except to maintain the shaky status quo. What else can Israel do, as unilateral actions?

Israel can apply sovereignty over the entire territory, ending the "occupation" and the "brutal military justice system". What do you think will happen after that?

Israel can withdraw from Gaza and the "West Bank", ending the "occupation" and the "brutal military justice system". What do you think will happen after that?

I think scenario one leads to a regional war and scenario two leads to the growth of extremist terrorist groups on two sides, potentially working together to eliminate Israel as a state and taking as many Jews along with it as they can.

Do you think I am wrong about this?

And, perhaps more importantly, to what extent must the Palestinians take responsibility, accountability, and move towards a better life for themselves?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Shusha

I’m going to address part of your post here.




Shusha:


No. It is not. And that is every time some one tries to hold a Israel accountable. It is not by any means justification, but you are using as a tool to stifle discussion.

Did Israel deserve what Hamas did? Of course not.

Is Israel collectively responsible for what Hamas did? Of course not. Those actions are on Hamas and Hamas only.

Likewise, are the Palestinians collectively responsible for what Hamas did? No. Hamas is responsible.

But this did not happen in a vacuum and people keep trying to treat it like it did on the Israeli side but not on the Palestinian side. This is the culmination of decades of an unresolved conflict and maintaining an unsustainable “status quo” on borders, occupation, two states, basic rights, legitimizing and promoting the use violence against civilians, corruption and corrupt leadership that fails it’s people. It did not happen in a vacuum and just like you can’t ignore the actions of the Palestinians in getting to this point, neither can you ignore the actions of Israel.

That is not victim blaming, it is recognizing this has been a long standing canker and you can’t keep pretending it will go away. This will keep happening unless the fundamental problems that created it get addressed.



Shusha:




Correct. Not single one of those things is resistance. Attacks against a civilian population is not “resistance”, it is terrorism or even war crimes.

And no justifications are being made.

So you are going to ignore the elephant in the room and label attempts to discuss it “justification” rather than because addressing it? Because if we don’t address these underlying issues, violence will keep on happening particularly if there is no political outlet for resolution available. That is the status quo.

And Israel isn’t the only that has had to look at how its political policies might have contributed. To some degree they have - demanding accountability from their government for massive failures of security, for a flawed policy that sought to “contain” Hamas in Gaza while simultaneously feeding it and allowing it to flourish.

Shusha:



Does it apply uniquely to Israel? I don’t think so.

But there is something that does: a unique absolution. A free pass. An endless occupation. A population kept under a brutal military justice system (compared to the civil system) indefinitely.

You post nothing but bigoted nonsense. Hamas attacked Israel on Oct 7 because Hanas is unalterably opposed to the existence of Israel and the great majority of Palestinians support that position and have since 1920 when the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, led a series of massacres of Jews in Palestine and ethnically cleansed Jewish towns and villages throughout Palestine that had existed since biblical times, and the Palestinians have never been willing to live in peace with Israel/Jews since.

Every major event in the history of the conflict was brought on by renewed attempts by the Palestinians to destroy Israel, and the Oct 7 attack was only the most recent in a long line of attempts over the last 100 years. The Palestinians attack, lose and then try to portray themselves as victims, not the aggressors, just as you are trying to do now. Israel, and especially Jewish Israelis have been under attack by the Arabs/Palestinians for over 100 years and an honest observers would note that under these circumstances the Israeli actions you are whining about are perfectly appropriate.

Hamas attacked Israel on Oct 7 and the polls show great majority of Palestinians supported the attack because that's who they are and that's who they have always been since 1920, and when you talk about the Palestinian civilians who have been killed in the war, don't forget to mention that over 60% of them applauded the rape, torture and murder of Israelis on Oct 7.