NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Ah yes, the good old "no good sides in this conflict" while one of the sides is basically beaten down into submission while the other one keeps on taking territory and bombing densely populated civilian areas.
If you actually read this thread, you might have caught me calling Hamas terrorists, pieces of theocratic shit, calling for their removal, praising killing of Sinwar and much, much more.
I'm not here defending Hamas, I've only ever defended and called for stop of violence against civilians, you conflating that with supporting terrorists again shows how, for racist or whatever reasons you conflate all Palestinians with terrorists.
You weren't called a racist, I called you out for lack of empathy for responding to a post about a lot of things, but among other a story about a 3 year old little girl who watched her mother burned with "but how about this thing from 3 years ago where people who looked like me suffered too".
Subsequently when the professional genocide denier Premo came to your defense I called both of you racists for always finding a way to blame Palestinians for being slaughtered.
Hamas has been “basically beaten down into submission” while the entire point is that they’re still not submitting. They could lay down their arms and welcome international peacekeepers tomorrow, but don’t. Instead, they’re charging $3200 for every truck that enters their territory with goods.
If they actually were beaten and basically submitting, then the responsibility would pass to others to render aid and rebuild.
I'm really both looking forward but also dreading watching the NAZA documentary. Unforunately it's not playing in theaters anywhere close to me, but I've seen reactions from many people I follow and they are all terrified.
The fact that Israeli regime is trying to revoke the citizenship of the film makers also says a lot, especially since they aren't really able to challenge the facts, so they go after the authors.
Latest source I've been watching that goes over it:
For context, these are 2 (ex) UK politicians, one was a minister and spy chief for Tony Blair's goverment and the other was a Tory MP in UK, so not exactly blue haired "pro-Paly" activists.
Anyhow, one thing that terrified me was mentioning of this rule:
NAZA is an acronym for nezek agavi, Hebrew for "collateral damage." It refers to the estimated number of civilian casualties considered acceptable by the Israeli military. "Twenty NAZA" would mean that up to 20 civilian deaths were approved in the elimination of a single target. For one high-value target, a figure of 500 NAZA was approved
So, the 20 figure was the threshold where they could go for the kill without requesting any approval from the higher ups. So a random IDF guy could just decide to murder 20 civilians as long as someone was flagged by AI systems as "Hamas affiliated".
Another one, even more terrifying:
One of the most chilling passages describes a tracking technology referred to as "Where's Daddy?," which uses children's words to confirm whether their targeted fathers are at home. One soldier talks about having used this method on a 12-year-old girl, saying, "You hack her phone and then you kill her." At one point, Abraham asks a subject if Israel is committing a genocide. Without hesitating, he responds, "Yes. Completely."
Anonymous accusations without specific facts and details that can be looked up and verified is tough to debunk. It can be said that Jankisa was caught in fraud or with a prostitute, but with no name date location and accuser that can be verified independently (as an eyewitness or repeating secondhand information) that charge does not carry weight. Incidentally, it means that the perpetrators and violators of policy cannot be caught and punished, if they exist.
But to the extent that is possible, Israel did respond:
Contrary to accepted practice, the filmmakers did not submit their allegations to the IDF for examination and response before publication, and did not provide a copy of the film after its screening, although the IDF requested it. They also supplied no details that would enable the individual incidents alleged in the film to be identified. To assess the film’s contents, the IDF relied on a detailed account by a representative who attended a public screening, as well as other public accounts and the filmmakers’ own public statements.
The anonymous interviewees addressing the IDF's targeting process are described as having served in intelligence roles. Their accounts generally focus on limited, initial stages dealing with intelligence, rather than the much broader process of planning and approving strikes, which is the responsibility of operational bodies that manage and conduct targeting rather than the IDF's intelligence corps. The film treats these accounts as though they establish decisions ultimately made about strikes. Even assuming the interviewees served in these roles and intended to describe faithfully what they witnessed (or, more problematically, heard from others), many of their claims show insufficient knowledge or understanding of the later stages of the targeting process beyond their assignments. The result is substantial errors and misrepresentations of IDF targeting policy (specific examples follow in Part II).
For example, an interviewee may recall a general, preliminary estimate of civilians present in an area around a military objective considered for striking and mistakenly believe this was the final estimate on which a strike was carried out. But that figure does not account for precautions decided later in the process and does not establish how many civilians were expected to be harmed by the strike eventually planned. Focusing the strike on particular parts of the target, adjusting the weapon or timing, and obtaining updated information about civilian evacuation following IDF warnings can significantly change the assessment of how many civilians are at risk.
The filmmakers could have identified and avoided the substantial errors apparent in the film had they conducted adequate verification and corroboration in good faith. The end result shows they did not. Beyond anonymous accounts by people whose precise roles and first-hand knowledge are unknown, they cite no military directives, contemporaneous records or other corroborating evidence. Accounts of alleged strikes identify no specific target, date, place or reported casualties, leaving the claims general and unverifiable. This also deprives viewers of the ability to check the claims independently. Contrary to accepted investigative journalistic practice, the filmmakers chose not to submit their allegations to the IDF before publication. That omission calls into question their willingness to test their narrative against explanations and evidence that might contradict it.
Claim: There was approval for 500 civilians to be killed in a single strike.
The IDF has never planned, approved or carried out a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians, or anything close to that number, were expected to be killed. Nor has anyone seriously alleged that an IDF strike caused that number of deaths or anything close to it. The filmmakers prominently featured this allegation, including in the film’s official trailer, even though they necessarily could not have verified it and had no evidence to prove it.
(The eyebrow-raising claim was many Israeli's first inkling that the film includes ludicrous claims)
Claim: A belief spread in the IDF that there are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza.
The distinction between military operatives and civilians is fundamental to the IDF, its commanders and its binding directives during the fighting in Gaza. This distinction is unequivocally expressed in every protocol or directive that addresses targeting processes in the IDF. The directives prohibit intentionally directing strikes against civilians or carrying out strikes expected to harm civilians in a disproportionate manner and require feasible precautions to mitigate incidental civilian harm from strikes on nearby military objectives. Maintaining this distinction, in the war the IDF took countless documented actions and implemented methods to mitigate civilian harm, including warnings, appropriate strike planning and strike cancellations in light of civilian presence. An interviewee’s assertion regarding the existence of an approach according to which there are “no uninvolved civilians in Gaza” may reflect his personal feelings or assessments, but it does not represent in any way the approach of the IDF and its commanders, its binding directives, or its activities to mitigate civilian harm throughout the war, that were documented and publicized many times.
The tragic consequences of war do not justify distorting the facts. Serious discussion of civilian harm requires a serious account of how decisions were actually made. That is precisely what the film fails to provide. The film seeks to create the impression that the IDF acts in an inhumane manner. In reality, the only way the filmmakers can create that impression is by distorting facts, omitting essential context, ignoring previous IDF publications and explanations, and adding emotional manipulation and scripted effects. The IDF has acted and continues to act humanely, even if the filmmakers have done everything they can to conceal that fact.
The IDF has also assembled its list of known terrorists that also claim/formerly claimed to be journalists. ~170 listed, of which roughly ~118 in Hamas's military wing and ~49 in Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Pictures are matched between the civilian portraits and their martyrdom posters (with their fighter's unit and wing). https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/the-press-files/
It's tough to both celebrate the terrorist victory in martyrdom, and also carry out a propaganda campaign directed on journalists for western consumptions, but they manage.
On October 23 2026 03:55 Jankisa wrote: I'm really both looking forward but also dreading watching the NAZA documentary. Unforunately it's not playing in theaters anywhere close to me, but I've seen reactions from many people I follow and they are all terrified.
The fact that Israeli regime is trying to revoke the citizenship of the film makers also says a lot, especially since they aren't really able to challenge the facts, so they go after the authors.
Latest source I've been watching that goes over it:
For context, these are 2 (ex) UK politicians, one was a minister and spy chief for Tony Blair's goverment and the other was a Tory MP in UK, so not exactly blue haired "pro-Paly" activists.
Anyhow, one thing that terrified me was mentioning of this rule:
NAZA is an acronym for nezek agavi, Hebrew for "collateral damage." It refers to the estimated number of civilian casualties considered acceptable by the Israeli military. "Twenty NAZA" would mean that up to 20 civilian deaths were approved in the elimination of a single target. For one high-value target, a figure of 500 NAZA was approved
So, the 20 figure was the threshold where they could go for the kill without requesting any approval from the higher ups. So a random IDF guy could just decide to murder 20 civilians as long as someone was flagged by AI systems as "Hamas affiliated".
One of the most chilling passages describes a tracking technology referred to as "Where's Daddy?," which uses children's words to confirm whether their targeted fathers are at home. One soldier talks about having used this method on a 12-year-old girl, saying, "You hack her phone and then you kill her." At one point, Abraham asks a subject if Israel is committing a genocide. Without hesitating, he responds, "Yes. Completely."
Jesus fucking christ...
972 broke these practices a long time ago, I posted about them on the thread at that point. But a comprehensive documentary on the topic is definitely a good thing. People have a tendency to not seek out sources, having the whole thing in one place will definitely create more impact.
On October 23 2026 03:55 Jankisa wrote: I'm really both looking forward but also dreading watching the NAZA documentary. Unforunately it's not playing in theaters anywhere close to me, but I've seen reactions from many people I follow and they are all terrified.
The fact that Israeli regime is trying to revoke the citizenship of the film makers also says a lot, especially since they aren't really able to challenge the facts, so they go after the authors.
Latest source I've been watching that goes over it:
For context, these are 2 (ex) UK politicians, one was a minister and spy chief for Tony Blair's goverment and the other was a Tory MP in UK, so not exactly blue haired "pro-Paly" activists.
Anyhow, one thing that terrified me was mentioning of this rule:
NAZA is an acronym for nezek agavi, Hebrew for "collateral damage." It refers to the estimated number of civilian casualties considered acceptable by the Israeli military. "Twenty NAZA" would mean that up to 20 civilian deaths were approved in the elimination of a single target. For one high-value target, a figure of 500 NAZA was approved
So, the 20 figure was the threshold where they could go for the kill without requesting any approval from the higher ups. So a random IDF guy could just decide to murder 20 civilians as long as someone was flagged by AI systems as "Hamas affiliated".
One of the most chilling passages describes a tracking technology referred to as "Where's Daddy?," which uses children's words to confirm whether their targeted fathers are at home. One soldier talks about having used this method on a 12-year-old girl, saying, "You hack her phone and then you kill her." At one point, Abraham asks a subject if Israel is committing a genocide. Without hesitating, he responds, "Yes. Completely."
Jesus fucking christ...
This will bounce off the Israel apologists anyway and any evidence it provides will be ignored or just essayed into nothingness over the course of another 800 pages.
But I suppose that is true of any evidence. I'll watch it as much as I can but it might be a bit much for me in my old age.
I want to watch it too, hope it's a bit substantial and not just some random examples of terrible things like Jankisa provides. Those can be found on both sides of any conflict.
About the NAZA number: isn't it telling there is at least some restraint that there is a number at all? Of course some big target is worth casualties. Putin and 1000 random civilian russian casualties? Green flag from me! What is the Naza number when Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets are carried out? I guess infinity. The existence of that number and the Israeli mapping out and indexing targets means they aren't just lobbing rockets into the slums to kill people. It remains to be seen how well they actually keep to their own standards, of course...or if the average IDF soldier gets away with anything they fancy doing without trial / justice.
If there were a strike that killed 500 civilians to kill one guy, they would have leaked the name of the guy, the date of the strike, the location of the strike. We would know the date and time and location of the strike already because there would be 500 corpses actually and we could just match it to whatever the "whistleblower" said. Nobody has, right? That can't be a reliable story.
The IDF's point made a lot of sense that the existence of one standard doesn't mean that's the only standard that you get a blank check within. If I find this film I'll watch it for details but taking the Hebrew words for "collateral damage" and concluding that means a system that allows killing civilians on purpose is probably a framing motivated by bias.
On October 23 2026 16:45 aseq wrote: I want to watch it too, hope it's a bit substantial and not just some random examples of terrible things like Jankisa provides. Those can be found on both sides of any conflict.
About the NAZA number: isn't it telling there is at least some restraint that there is a number at all? Of course some big target is worth casualties. Putin and 1000 random civilian russian casualties? Green flag from me! What is the Naza number when Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets are carried out? I guess infinity. The existence of that number and the Israeli mapping out and indexing targets means they aren't just lobbing rockets into the slums to kill people. It remains to be seen how well they actually keep to their own standards, of course...or if the average IDF soldier gets away with anything they fancy doing without trial / justice.
The number is to give a constraint to their AI. If they didn't give it a number the AI could just tell them to nuke Gaza and that wouldn't be effective in terms of developing targets to hit.
On October 23 2026 16:45 aseq wrote: I want to watch it too, hope it's a bit substantial and not just some random examples of terrible things like Jankisa provides. Those can be found on both sides of any conflict.
About the NAZA number: isn't it telling there is at least some restraint that there is a number at all? Of course some big target is worth casualties. Putin and 1000 random civilian russian casualties? Green flag from me! What is the Naza number when Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets are carried out? I guess infinity. The existence of that number and the Israeli mapping out and indexing targets means they aren't just lobbing rockets into the slums to kill people. It remains to be seen how well they actually keep to their own standards, of course...or if the average IDF soldier gets away with anything they fancy doing without trial / justice.
The number is to give a constraint to their AI. If they didn't give it a number the AI could just tell them to nuke Gaza and that wouldn't be effective in terms of developing targets to hit.
Yes the genocide must be as slow and constrained as possible I got it.
On October 23 2026 16:45 aseq wrote: I want to watch it too, hope it's a bit substantial and not just some random examples of terrible things like Jankisa provides. Those can be found on both sides of any conflict.
About the NAZA number: isn't it telling there is at least some restraint that there is a number at all? Of course some big target is worth casualties. Putin and 1000 random civilian russian casualties? Green flag from me! What is the Naza number when Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets are carried out? I guess infinity. The existence of that number and the Israeli mapping out and indexing targets means they aren't just lobbing rockets into the slums to kill people. It remains to be seen how well they actually keep to their own standards, of course...or if the average IDF soldier gets away with anything they fancy doing without trial / justice.
The number is to give a constraint to their AI. If they didn't give it a number the AI could just tell them to nuke Gaza and that wouldn't be effective in terms of developing targets to hit.
Yes the genocide must be as slow and constrained as possible I got it.
Would you like us to go over this for four or five posts so that you can then ignore the last one of those five posts and come back two weeks later saying the same things as if nothing happened.
On October 23 2026 16:45 aseq wrote: I want to watch it too, hope it's a bit substantial and not just some random examples of terrible things like Jankisa provides. Those can be found on both sides of any conflict.
About the NAZA number: isn't it telling there is at least some restraint that there is a number at all? Of course some big target is worth casualties. Putin and 1000 random civilian russian casualties? Green flag from me! What is the Naza number when Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets are carried out? I guess infinity. The existence of that number and the Israeli mapping out and indexing targets means they aren't just lobbing rockets into the slums to kill people. It remains to be seen how well they actually keep to their own standards, of course...or if the average IDF soldier gets away with anything they fancy doing without trial / justice.
The number is to give a constraint to their AI. If they didn't give it a number the AI could just tell them to nuke Gaza and that wouldn't be effective in terms of developing targets to hit.
Yes the genocide must be as slow and constrained as possible I got it.
Would you like us to go over this for four or five posts so that you can then ignore the last one of those five posts and come back two weeks later saying the same things as if nothing happened.
You think the IDF is controlled by a Skynet that would nuke Gaza but for Israel putting constraints on it not to. What is there to elaborate?
On October 25 2026 00:45 oBlade wrote: You think the IDF is controlled by a Skynet that would nuke Gaza but for Israel putting constraints on it not to. What is there to elaborate?
You could elaborate why you'd rather believe what you already do and defend it against reality, instead of trying to find the truth and believe things that make sense. I never understood that mindset.
An article about the upcoming election in Israel and Netanyahu’s main political rival. Polls suggest no one will have enough power to govern with a majority government. I’d guess that most people here would think Eisenkot would be an improvement but far far from their ideal, as he came up through the IDF, doesn’t want a two state solution and so on. The good news would be when he was in charge of the IDF he did resist political pressure and still held a trial for his own soldiers, and has called Israeli settlers Jewish terrorists.
In regards to Where's Daddy: This was brought up months / years ago... Unless we talk about specific names and dates, the data is hard to discuss. The AI is able to legitimize certain strikes but a high priority target rarely walks / lives alone. So the collateral could read for one target but the ratio could be much lower as other officers and fighters would be hit as well. This of course is hard to verify as Hamas and the Hamas controlled MoH don't distinguish between fighters and civilians. What we roughly know is the civilian-to-soldier death rate which of course is nowhere near these extreme figures from the documentary.
On October 19 2026 01:23 PremoBeats wrote: I wrote a rather long explanation (the rest of the post you quoted). But perhaps answering this simple question helps: Do you think Hamas would stop using violence if Israeli policy changed substantially, provided Israel continued to exist or do you think it would continue pursuing its objectives through violence regardless of those changes?
I think that Hamas would continue to be violent toward Israel, but over time (and a shorter amount of time than one would think) it would recruit less members, as people would lack the incentive to join or support it.
But these are two different claims that you neatly wrap into one. #1: Hamas would continue to be violent toward Israel (I agree) #2: They would recruit less members (probably also true) But only #1 addresses the discussion about reductionism, so I'tt stick to that. Given#1 / if Hamas would continue using violence even after substantial changes to Israeli policy, then Israeli policy alone cannot adequately explain that violence and it is reductive to think that the violence of October 7th only occurred because of Israeli policy. And if we're discussing October 7 specifically, we need to distinguish between explaining the conditions that may have contributed to the attack and explaining Hamas' willingness to deliberately target Israeli and foreign civilians.
Hamas has ideological objectives that go beyond opposition to particular Israeli policies. The same is true of other Islamist factions that oppose Israel's existence. So Israeli policy isn't irrelevant to their recruitment or the circumstances in which they operate. But it means that reducing their violence to a reaction to Israeli policy overlooks an important part of the explanation. To deny the role of religious fundamentalism and Islamist extremism in Hamas' actions would be naive in my opinion.
On October 20 2026 22:47 Jankisa wrote: You weren't called a racist, I called you out for lack of empathy for responding to a post about a lot of things, but among other a story about a 3 year old little girl who watched her mother burned with "but how about this thing from 3 years ago where people who looked like me suffered too".
Subsequently when the professional genocide denier Premo came to your defense I called both of you racists for always finding a way to blame Palestinians for being slaughtered.
Hope that clarifies it!
You didn't call aseq a racist? May I remind you of this:
On October 15 2026 19:08 aseq wrote: Posting individual cases is really easy. I also watched an Israeli head dragged through the streets behind a moped after 7 oct. And some girls hiding at the festival before the Gazans found them and they were killed. Their family members have possibly seen those too. And those cases were not collateral.
Nothing about this is easy, except the ease you guys have for dismissing unfathomable suffering of people who don't look like you.
You didn't merely accuse aseq of whataboutism or of being insensitive. You offer a specific explanation for the alleged lack of empathy: the victims don't look like aseq. He simply showed that suffering exists on both sides… you brought ethnicity into it. You further called him racist and me racist in the next reply because aseq and me - again - called out the relevance of your argument. Nothing more. You brought ethnicity into this discussion and you used it to silence shame others for things they never said or supported. Neither aseq nor me, made any comments about ethnicity being the main issue here.
"Shocking, a racist is unhappy when their racism is pointed out to them!" and "Ah, yes, the nuanced take of "it's bad and non-nuanced to tell people denying ethnic clensing, apartheid and genocide with conclusions being that Palestinians are at fault that they are racist", how refreshing." Do you seriously think that being racist towards Palestinians is the only reason that people argue against false information, exaggerations and legal standards for apartheid and genocide? Especially when they said so countless times? Especially as you were bringing up Srebrenica and left the discussion when I made the statement that Srebrenica is the perfect example to show that the genocide claim in Gaza isn't clear at all? What about these arguments ever were about race? Or virtually any of my arguments?
No one is dismissing the unfathomable suffering of Palestinians. I have made this clear in many of my posts - so stop implying things that didn't happen. Rather, show one post that is downplaying the suffering of the Palestinians for being Palestinians. Only one. Where the contention was not the civilian-to-soldier casualty rate, counter-evidence, legal standards, exaggerations, wrong information, hyperbolic speech or simply smug levels of discussion like you displayed so often but - in the most despicable way - one page ago. This is your chance. Show the thread how anyone - including aseq and myself - have made this about ethnicity.
On October 25 2026 06:48 Billyboy wrote: An article about the upcoming election in Israel and Netanyahu’s main political rival. Polls suggest no one will have enough power to govern with a majority government. I’d guess that most people here would think Eisenkot would be an improvement but far far from their ideal, as he came up through the IDF, doesn’t want a two state solution and so on. The good news would be when he was in charge of the IDF he did resist political pressure and still held a trial for his own soldiers, and has called Israeli settlers Jewish terrorists.
That's pretty close to being the polar opposite to Bibbi.
Do we think the people in Israel realise this election is viewed internationally as them either rejecting the current status or taking responsibility for it?
A lot of people I know think this current shitshow is mainly Bibbis fault for being a corrupt piece of shit trying to stay in power. Israel as a goverment is the problem, not necessarily as a country and certainly not as a population.
However if he gets reelected that equation would change. It would be very hard to argue that the current situation is not something the average Israeli desires.
If he gets reelected, the people will continue explaining how it's a coalition and he simply has to work with Smotrich and Ben Gvir and that even if you add them up they are still not real majority, so that means that on average, Israeli aren't really into blowing up tens of thousands of civilians and killing 20 + thousand kids.
Of course, that is, elections only matter as a way to explain why it's OK to bomb an area if said elections happened 22 years ago and vast majority of people in there couldn't have voted due to not being born or being under age.
Then those Palestinians deserve it because they voted for Hamas and Hamas did October 7th, so whatever IDF does to them is OK.
I hope for the sake of Israel that they reject Nathyanahu, deal with his failures, put him on trial and in jail, not just for his numerous corruption scandals but primarily for his failures to prepare and respond to October 7th, and even more for enacting incredible violence and escalating every conflict he could in order to hold on to power for as long as possible.
In a country where many of their historically most prominent politicians were convicted terrorists, he is the biggest criminal of them all.
Good luck Israel, I'm rooting for you to prove that normal, empathetic people are still a majority.
On October 25 2026 06:48 Billyboy wrote: An article about the upcoming election in Israel and Netanyahu’s main political rival. Polls suggest no one will have enough power to govern with a majority government. I’d guess that most people here would think Eisenkot would be an improvement but far far from their ideal, as he came up through the IDF, doesn’t want a two state solution and so on. The good news would be when he was in charge of the IDF he did resist political pressure and still held a trial for his own soldiers, and has called Israeli settlers Jewish terrorists.
That's pretty close to being the polar opposite to Bibbi.
Do we think the people in Israel realise this election is viewed internationally as them either rejecting the current status or taking responsibility for it?
A lot of people I know think this current shitshow is mainly Bibbis fault for being a corrupt piece of shit trying to stay in power. Israel as a goverment is the problem, not necessarily as a country and certainly not as a population.
However if he gets reelected that equation would change. It would be very hard to argue that the current situation is not something the average Israeli desires.
I would guess they are fairly aware, but one of Netanyahu’s corruption charges involves favours from the media, so I’m guessing he gets pretty “positive” coverage. Their system is different in the sense that Bibis party has often not had the biggest amount of votes , just the ability to put together the biggest coalition. To me, and I’m not particularly informed it looks like this is going to one of those situations where they end up with a barely held together coalition regardless of who’s leading it and it doesn’t last the first major challenge. Then they are back at the polls again.
On October 25 2026 21:31 PremoBeats wrote: But these are two different claims that you neatly wrap into one. #1: Hamas would continue to be violent toward Israel (I agree) #2: They would recruit less members (probably also true) But only #1 addresses the discussion about reductionism, so I'tt stick to that. Given#1 / if Hamas would continue using violence even after substantial changes to Israeli policy, then Israeli policy alone cannot adequately explain that violence and it is reductive to think that the violence of October 7th only occurred because of Israeli policy.
This reasoning doesn't work, no. First, it is entirely possible for something that happened purely in the past to still have effects on the present, especially if those effects are still felt in the present. Let's say that someone in Hamas is mad because the IDF killed three quarters of his family, and now Israel changes its policy substantially and no longer kills more families. That person may still be mad and still be in Hamas. Your hypothetical and my answers to it do not disprove that Israel policy is responsible for the palestinian reaction in the way that you claim they do.
Second, the amount of members that Hamas has is very obviously a large part of why it is a problem. Don't you reckon that october 7th goes a little different if 16 Nukhba fighters break into Israel instead of 3800?
It appears that the reason why you went into this hypothetical in the first place is because you can't give a satisfactory answer to the question of what other factors exist to make it reductive. You mentioned a complex multifactorial web, but the web that you wove is only complex in that you decided to call it complex with rhetoric, if we parse through it comes back to the current israeli oppression. Obviously.
On October 25 2026 21:31 PremoBeats wrote: You didn't call aseq a racist? May I remind you of this:
On October 15 2026 21:03 Jankisa wrote: the ease you guys have for dismissing unfathomable suffering of people who don't look like you.
You didn't merely accuse aseq of whataboutism or of being insensitive. You offer a specific explanation for the alleged lack of empathy: the victims don't look like aseq. He simply showed that suffering exists on both sides… you brought ethnicity into it. You further called him racist and me racist in the next reply because aseq and me - again - called out the relevance of your argument. Nothing more. You brought ethnicity into this discussion and you used it to silence shame others for things they never said or supported. Neither aseq nor me, made any comments about ethnicity being the main issue here.
"Shocking, a racist is unhappy when their racism is pointed out to them!"
That's sort of the glib, casual racism of the anti-Israel side. They don't even notice it.
No one is dismissing the unfathomable suffering of Palestinians. I have made this clear in many of my posts - so stop implying things that didn't happen. Rather, show one post that is downplaying the suffering of the Palestinians for being Palestinians.
It's a kind of intellectual or emotional disconnect between sympathy for the suffering and assigning moral culpability to Israelis. It's still sad and soul-crushing if the blame ultimately rests on Hamas and all the steps that enabled them to start the war and force civilian casualties higher.
EPT
