Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Verified?

One so far.

That was Doron Katz-Asher who was killed while being driven away in a tractor.

Not sure what that has to do with anything but to go down the rabbit hole of a conspiracy theory that has been debunked.

Can you elaborate, as you seem to be light on the details?

For example, what armed resistance did the civil rights leaders of the 1960s engage in in the US?

The issue is, that while you are ostensibly trying to project a neutral view, it is starting from the point that Israel are right, and therefore you mould your answer around it.

If you want to argue that the anger of Israelis justifies or excuses killing tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, then you have to apply that to Hamas. If you want to argue that because Israel is the bigger and stronger bear which means that it is expected and acceptable for them to attack the weaker party (i.e. some form of "might is right"), then you have to apply the same logic to the situation when armed militants with AK47s are entering your kibbutz.

If Israel's big US brother suddenly pulled all support and left it at the mercy of the supposed enemies that surround it, and said hypothetical enemies attacked it and killed huge numbers of Israelis, then you'd have to say "well they poked the bear so all is fair" too.

BTW, I never said anything about Israel waiting for more victims to sate their bloodlust. My point is that if you want to have the view that Israel is justified and excused in killing tens of thousands, maiming many more, and destroying millions of people's livelihoods and homes, in retaliation for 1000+ Israelis being killed, then all I'd ask is consistency and apply the same to Hamas. But that argument will then descend to a "who started it" one because if one thinks Hamas were justified and excused for Oct 7th, then that must remove some legitimacy from Israel's response.

And to repeat again, I don't think either is justified. I just highlight the contradictory standards commonly applied by many people who've already chosen a "side"

I never said MLK engaged in violence I said he was a figurehead for the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement had MANY different factions, these included the black panthers who did engage in violence.

You can't just say MLK, Ghandi, Mandela etc as if they were the be all and end all of civil rights movements and therefore there was no violence in civil rights campaigns in their respective countries.

Remember kids

When they defend israels actions they're defending Israel's continued genocide in Gaza.

"

Unicef warns of increase in 'unbearable level of child deaths in Gaza' due to malnutrition

UN agency Unicef has warned the Gaza Strip is poised to witness an increase in what an official said was “the already unbearable level of child deaths” due to a worsening food crisis."

You miss the point completely.

Change happened in those countries, led by those people because they followed non-violent means.

Just because some fringe elements advocate more violent means does not detract from my point.

Just because the Black Panthers advocated violence, does not detract from the Civil Rights movement and its achievements. People look at the movement and celebrate its achievements, they don't celebrate the Black Panthers.

The same can be said for Gandhi and Mandela.

Also, those fringe elements never blew themselves up on a bus full of civilians, or massacred entire villages full of women and kids.

Notably, you wont answer the question on the use of violence, however.

"The same can be said for Gandhi and Mandela."

This Mandela?

Maybe the Palestinians are following the lead of Mandela, they've suffered under Apartheid the same as the people of SA did.

"Mandela embraced armed struggle to end the racist system of apartheid.

To many South Africans, particularly within the African National Congress, Mandela was a great man partly because of his willingness to use violence, not in spite of it.

Many believe apartheid would have endured much longer if he hadn’t rebelled and overturned the ANC’s long-standing nonviolence policy."

That is just like the '' croppy lie down '' policy. BUT that didn't work either. If you don't stand up for your rights then don't expect your aggressors to stand up for you.

You didn't give an example of what the Palestinians have to do to achieve their rights peacefully BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

Even if Hamas release all the hostages , it wouldn't mean an end to the war. This is the obstacle to any permanent ceasefire, Bibi has made it clear any ceasefire will be temporary. Both Hamas and Bibi share one goal; they are seemingly intent on seeing this through to the bitter end.

America could actually solve this if they put real pressure on both Qatar and Israel. They won't do it though .

A Tory councilor rang into James O'Brien's show when he was covering the Lee Anderson story.

He's jewish and basically wanted to steer the conversation away from islamaphobia and instead talk about anti-semitism in the wake of the Gaza conflict.

To call it a train-wreck might actually be an understatement. He'll be lucky if he isn't sued after this performance.

Not much point going on about DPP v Barnes. It's irrelevant to the scenario you posted. I don't think the Hamas lads are claiming they killed Israelis in self defence from a burglary gone wrong. The Palestinians original "offence" appears to be mainly existing and breathing if you do want to make the analogy.

Why is it terrible when one side kills some civilians, but not the other side? Why the double standard? That's all I ask.

Plenty of people, spread across multiple generations of Irish history, "provoked the bear" of the British empire in their quest for freedom and equality. They were "wrong" to do so until they weren't I guess..........even though their aspirations would have been equally as valid.

Can you say for certainty what you would do if you lived there - with no hope and no future? Suffering humiliation every day of your life while colonisers who stole your land spit at you from the other side of that barbed wire fence. Perhaps seeing you house bulldozed and members of your family shot. A slow death of suffocation. Would you keep bending over saying "give it to me bear, I don't want to provoke you", or might you flip and decide you have nothing to live for and only something to die for? In many ways, a long slow, prolonged systematic process of murder would be less preferable to a large and quick hyper-violent one.

Yet again ignoring that these all didn't work in isolation and never would have unfortunately

I know failure when I see it, and the past 75 years have been a failure of Palestinian leadership, no question about that.

It appears everyone else has run out of ideas.

You didn't answer my question, yet again.

And yes, Mandela in his earlier years dabbled in armed resistance but saw that it was a dead end and disavowed violence. That is why he was a great man, he saw through and beyond violence.

It's easy to pick up a rock or a gun or plant a bomb, it's much harder to take the high road to peace.

We have 75 years of evidence that Palestinian violence and armed resistance is not working.

A definition of madness is to continue doing the same thing, but expecting different results.

It bought Britain to the table.

You've already stated you aren't, so you are not equipped to ask me that.

Can you? No. "No point in asking me this."

You're in no position to accuse others of being weird or evasive either evidently.

All Hamas is Palestinian resistance but not all Palestinian resistance is Hamas.

Because his views on historical nonviolence are woefully inaccurate of what actually happened.

Because they demand answers of poster but don't do the same

And that they talk of nonviolence but won't address the elephant in the room if Israeli violence that has existed for 75+ years too.

They've also gone running when some points were roundly dismantled as utter baloney only to stick the head up a few days later.

They just want to be seen to be right, rather than accurate.