• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hamas invaded Israel 2023

  • Thread starter Thread starter McG
  • Start date Start date
Hamas-run propaganda machine is falling.

The famine is solely Hamas induced to maintain control -- they will intentionally starve their people to attempt to get both goodwill from the gullible as well as keep leverage from being the food provider.
 
I heard about it about a year ago.
Consider his entire comment.

The second part is clearly more important.

We have not heard about it, compared to how much we would've in the other scenario. Consider how much we heard about a catholic just giving an inspiring speech to the graduating class of a catholic school.
 
Consider his entire comment.

The second part is clearly more important.

We have not heard about it, compared to how much we would've in the other scenario. Consider how much we heard about a catholic just giving an inspiring speech to the graduating class of a catholic school.
I just remember commenting and laughing about the cognitive dissonance last year! It was all over the news.
 
So, propagandists aside, there's only one pro-Hamas (cheeky I know) on this forum. Yet 50-75% of the population view Israel negatively.

What explains this? Our shared understanding of military operations? Affinity for Israel, somehow? Intransigeance with the type of people who'd kill our brothers in arms?

If the first option, how do we better get this across to the population? For many people, they don't really differentiate between "dying from terrorism" and "dying from collateral damage". They think of the war through an individual lens. Is it too heartless to ask them to stop thinking about humans?
 
I wonder what you are smoking at times...
Hmm ethnic cleansing in 1948 and 1967? Let's look at exactly what the Arab world tried to do to Israel on those dates.

Maybe in 1948 when the Arab League attack Israel, and got their ass handed to them, and the country of Israel expanded to take buffer territory.
Then the Arab nations promised to take in Palestinians, as they had been forcibly expelling Jews anyway - with the promise they could return once Palestine was 'liberated" -
No need to wonder, never smoked or drank once in my life.

What you're stating about 1948 is completely false (ie. Arab armies attacks caused the Palestinians to flee and/or Arab leaders broadcasted orders for the Palestinians to leave so that the armies can drive the Jews out).

Although that's the official Israeli narrative used to describe the founding of the State of Israel (blaming the Nakba on the Arabs), it's nothing but a myth that's been debunked by Israeli historians themselves citing official Israeli archives after the 1948 documents were declassified in the late 1980's (historians like Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Simha Flapan). I'm not even going to reference Palestinian historians because I'm sure they'll be discredited.

Zionists in Palestine initiated a process of ethnic cleansing in early 1948, even before the end of the British Mandate on May 15. By April, over 150,000 had been expelled, with the massacre at Deir Yassin on April 9 exemplifying the brutality of these expulsions. By the time Arab armies intervened on May 15, already 250,000 Palestinians were already refugees. It was a systematic expulsion.

Benny Morris himself, a staunch Zionist, stated that the "Haganah and IZL offensives in Haifa, Jaffa and eastern and western Galilee precipitated a mass exodus" and "Undoubtedly ... the most important single factor in the exodus of April–June was Jewish attack. This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during or in the immediate wake of military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before the main Haganah/IZL assault."

Even from my own family history, I can tell you that they didn't just flee when they heard the Arab armies are entering. To the contrary, my family stayed in their town (Al-Faluja) till 1949 along with the Egyptian army that was besieged in town for 4 months, from Oct 1948 until the armistice agreement was reached in Feb 1949. Following the armistice agreement, the Israelis promptly violated it and began to intimidate the local population into flight (it doesn't exist anymore, now it's an Israeli town called Kiryat Gat that was built adjacent to it).

At the end of the day, it really goes back to the settler colonial ideology embedded in Zionism. Early Zionists knew well that Palestine is populated (not the myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”) and in order create a Jewish majority state in Palestine, there has to be a "transfer" of the indigenous population (a nicer way to say ethnic cleansing).
They didn't even shy away from publicly stating that intent. I'm sure the following quotes will be shocking for some:
  • Ukrainian/Russian born Moshe Sharett (first Israeli foreign minister) wrote in 1914:
    "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise."

  • Belarusian/Russian born Menachem Begin (leader of the Irgun and former PM) stated in 1930:
    "If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]."

  • Ukrainian/Russian born Joseph Weitz (Head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department and known to be the "Architect of the Transfer"), in 1940:
    "We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries — all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.

  • Hungarian born Theodor Herzl (father of modern Zionism) wrote in 1895:
    "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly."

  • Polish born David Ben-Gurion (first PM of Israel) in 1937:
    "The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples"
    And "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."
There were many more so I had to pick!
 
So, propagandists aside, there's only one pro-Hamas (cheeky I know) on this forum. Yet 50-75% of the population view Israel negatively.

What explains this? Our shared understanding of military operations? Affinity for Israel, somehow? Intransigeance with the type of people who'd kill our brothers in arms?

If the first option, how do we better get this across to the population? For many people, they don't really differentiate between "dying from terrorism" and "dying from collateral damage". They think of the war through an individual lens. Is it too heartless to ask them to stop thinking about humans?

You're right, about half of Canadians polled agree that Israel is committing a genocide:

Link to the full report:
 
Well they took him to aid…
My first response was thinking that's a clever but mean way to deflect RPG rounds. Then I realized they're evacing the person to get them medical aid. Pretty thoughtful of them.


There were many more so I had to pick!
When cutting and pasting swaths of other people's work you should include a link to the source, or at the very least credit the author.
 
No need to wonder, never smoked or drank once in my life.

What you're stating about 1948 is completely false (ie. Arab armies attacks caused the Palestinians to flee and/or Arab leaders broadcasted orders for the Palestinians to leave so that the armies can drive the Jews out).

Although that's the official Israeli narrative used to describe the founding of the State of Israel (blaming the Nakba on the Arabs), it's nothing but a myth that's been debunked by Israeli historians themselves citing official Israeli archives after the 1948 documents were declassified in the late 1980's (historians like Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Simha Flapan). I'm not even going to reference Palestinian historians because I'm sure they'll be discredited.

Zionists in Palestine initiated a process of ethnic cleansing in early 1948, even before the end of the British Mandate on May 15. By April, over 150,000 had been expelled, with the massacre at Deir Yassin on April 9 exemplifying the brutality of these expulsions. By the time Arab armies intervened on May 15, already 250,000 Palestinians were already refugees. It was a systematic expulsion.

Benny Morris himself, a staunch Zionist, stated that the "Haganah and IZL offensives in Haifa, Jaffa and eastern and western Galilee precipitated a mass exodus" and "Undoubtedly ... the most important single factor in the exodus of April–June was Jewish attack. This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during or in the immediate wake of military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before the main Haganah/IZL assault."

Even from my own family history, I can tell you that they didn't just flee when they heard the Arab armies are entering. To the contrary, my family stayed in their town (Al-Faluja) till 1949 along with the Egyptian army that was besieged in town for 4 months, from Oct 1948 until the armistice agreement was reached in Feb 1949. Following the armistice agreement, the Israelis promptly violated it and began to intimidate the local population into flight (it doesn't exist anymore, now it's an Israeli town called Kiryat Gat that was built adjacent to it).

At the end of the day, it really goes back to the settler colonial ideology embedded in Zionism. Early Zionists knew well that Palestine is populated (not the myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”) and in order create a Jewish majority state in Palestine, there has to be a "transfer" of the indigenous population (a nicer way to say ethnic cleansing).
They didn't even shy away from publicly stating that intent. I'm sure the following quotes will be shocking for some:
  • Ukrainian/Russian born Moshe Sharett (first Israeli foreign minister) wrote in 1914:
    "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise."

  • Belarusian/Russian born Menachem Begin (leader of the Irgun and former PM) stated in 1930:
    "If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]."

  • Ukrainian/Russian born Joseph Weitz (Head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department and known to be the "Architect of the Transfer"), in 1940:
    "We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries — all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.

  • Hungarian born Theodor Herzl (father of modern Zionism) wrote in 1895:
    "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly."

  • Polish born David Ben-Gurion (first PM of Israel) in 1937:
    "The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples"
    And "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."
There were many more so I had to pick!
Sounds like the Palestinians need to get their act in order and get some of their Arab brothers and sisters to do something more that let Israel take care of the Arabs’ own internal problems.

You're right, about half of Canadians polled agree that Israel is committing a genocide:

Canadians, including you abduly85, would know then, wouldn’t we? After all, we are all knowing supporters of genocide right here in Canada after all. Our PM tells us so.

Abduly85, are you good with being a complicit supporter of indigenous genocide here in Canada?
 
My first response was thinking that's a clever but mean way to deflect RPG rounds. Then I realized they're evacing the person to get them medical aid. Pretty thoughtful of them.



When cutting and pasting swaths of other people's work you should include a link to the source, or at the very least credit the author.
I wonder if Hamas would give medical aid to an Israeli?
 
So, propagandists aside, there's only one pro-Hamas (cheeky I know) on this forum. Yet 50-75% of the population view Israel negatively.

What explains this? Our shared understanding of military operations? Affinity for Israel, somehow? Intransigeance with the type of people who'd kill our brothers in arms?

If the first option, how do we better get this across to the population? For many people, they don't really differentiate between "dying from terrorism" and "dying from collateral damage". They think of the war through an individual lens. Is it too heartless to ask them to stop thinking about humans?
Firstly I hope your not referring to me as pro-Hamas. They could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and I would be very happy about that. I just don’t agree with killing tons of civilians to make that happen.

Secondly I can likely shed some light towards the dislike many have towards Israel today. For starters I suspect I am much younger than most on here, especially the regulars. I grew up with technology, specifically the ability to see the world with a much lower filter than previous generations. This leads to a very different viewpoint on these topics.

I take the viewpoint of Israel being a pretty terrible country in terms of human rights abuses, cover ups, direct violation of international law, etc. They are the apartheid South Africa of our time. The only reason it is tolerated is because they are in a very bad neighbourhood and they share some (but not all) of our values.

Personally I think the reason a bunch of pressure should be applied to Israel is because the reality on the ground is they are the one with the ability to change everything.

They can stop expanding and building settlements today if they wanted to. They could stop killing civilians in the West Bank today if they wanted to. They could stop their offensive in Gaza today if they wanted to. They could forcibly create the state of Palestine today if they wanted to. They could stop doing everything in their power to prevent a democratic Palestinian group from getting in power.

My question to you is why should we look favourably upon Israel?
 
  • Insightful
Reactions: ueo
My question to you is why should we look favourably upon Israel?

For the same reasons 'The Levant' has been important for the past thousand years: geopolitical power. Anyone who thinks differently is deeply naive, and is vulnerable to being erased by history...

Israel's Strategic Position​


For the United States, Israel essentially is an insurance policy should Iran or Turkey prove able to capitalize too effectively on regional turmoil. Though the United States cannot depend solely on Israel to shape the region in line with Washington's wishes, Israel still serves a very important role in Washington's overall strategy: A powerful Israel, armed to the teeth by the United States, precludes the possibility of one power dominating the region completely. This means Israel will still enjoy significant U.S. support, but it also means Israel will become a target for would-be regional hegemons.

For any power emanating from the east, whether based in present-day Iraq or Iran, Israel is situated on particularly important strategic territory. The ancient Persian Empire pushed to the eastern Mediterranean precisely because it required an anchor in the Levant to protect against aggressive actions from Mediterranean powers. Without a foothold in the Levant, Iran cannot feel secure.

 
So, propagandists aside, there's only one pro-Hamas (cheeky I know) on this forum. Yet 50-75% of the population view Israel negatively.

What explains this? Our shared understanding of military operations? Affinity for Israel, somehow? Intransigeance with the type of people who'd kill our brothers in arms?

I viewed Israel negatively prior to October 7th, and I still do. I also viewed Palestine negatively prior to October 7th. Afterwards I view them a hell of a lot worse, and see the line between Palestinian civilian (Gaza) and Hamas terrorist as a very thin one.


You're right, about half of Canadians polled agree that Israel is committing a genocide:
Forgetting the sheer number of Canadians who can't even find Gaza on the map, sure I'd buy that stat. In fact I would lean towards "Yes they probably are committing genocide, at least as far as trying to forcefully remove a population".

That's the unfortunate reality of the situation Israel has been placed in. Israel is already surrounded by enemies that would wipe them out if given the ability to do so. Now they have violent neighbors, who have a history of terrorism and violence, kidnapping raping and murdering their citizens in their home. Said population of innocent Palestinians were cheering in the streets, joining the killing spree, and illegally harboring kidnapped people in their homes. Palestinians have signaled, through their almost 2 decade support of Hamas, they can't co-exist peacefully with Israel. Israel is putting their own citizens lives first, that's not always pretty.

Have you ever visited the middle east @abduly85 ?
 
Last edited:
Firstly I hope your not referring to me as pro-Hamas. They could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and I would be very happy about that. I just don’t agree with killing tons of civilians to make that happen.
I was hoping you wouldn't take it too badly, hence my "cheeky, I know" :P I know you're not actually pro-terrorism. I stand by that characterization of most pro-"Palestine" advocates, however, because most will gleefully chant for the destruction of Israel.
Secondly I can likely shed some light towards the dislike many have towards Israel today. For starters I suspect I am much younger than most on here, especially the regulars. I grew up with technology, specifically the ability to see the world with a much lower filter than previous generations. This leads to a very different viewpoint on these topics.
I think there is very little truth to that, when speaking generally.

It is well-demonstrated that basically every mental health condition went up dramatically in young people right as they were exposed to social media en masse. They are extremely malleable by the forces of the internet.

The youth are fully immersed in a chaotic information environment chock-full of propaganda, with no experience, wisdom or perspective to discern what is true and good from what isn't. Universities are essentially re-education camps where they are taught the hottest conspiracies.

Yes, boomers are out of date on many things, but at least they aren't as malleable.
I take the viewpoint of Israel being a pretty terrible country in terms of human rights abuses, cover ups, direct violation of international law, etc. They are the apartheid South Africa of our time. The only reason it is tolerated is because they are in a very bad neighbourhood and they share some (but not all) of our values.
Or because the alternative is another holocaust. But yes, in-group preference is actually a great reason to support Israel.
Personally I think the reason a bunch of pressure should be applied to Israel is because the reality on the ground is they are the one with the ability to change everything.
Wrong. Israel has always been on the defensive, willing to surrender territories it had taken over in defensive wars.

The road to peace runs through the Arabic and Muslim states. It is they who must pressure Iran and Hamas to stand down.

All tiny Israel can do is whatever its survival necessitates.

They can stop expanding and building settlements today if they wanted to. They could stop killing civilians in the West Bank today if they wanted to.
No, they cannot. The West Bank was used as a springboard to invade Israel, it cannot be left to its enemies.

Arab leaders know this and they know Israel can be a partner for peace and prosperity. They refuse to act largely because of the pressure exerted on them by their own peoples' hatred of Jews.
They could stop their offensive in Gaza today if they wanted to.
Why should they? Has Hamas surrendered? No? Then the job's not done. Without the current operation, they'd be hit again by another terrorist onslaught year after year.
They could forcibly create the state of Palestine today if they wanted to.
Administered by who? Hamas terrorists? The extremely corrupt leaders of the PLO? Themselves, as an occupation force? The impotent and complicit UN? All of those options lead to a continued insurgency.
They could stop doing everything in their power to prevent a democratic Palestinian group from getting in power.

My question to you is why should we look favourably upon Israel?
Because it is a tiny nation founded by a resourceful people who have been unfairly treated for generations but who managed to build a great and free country in what was once a barren land, despite overwhelming odds in the face of continued aggression and detestation by enemies fifty times more numerous.
 
Back
Top