Israel

[Vēritās]

Veritas, I said go to hell. I meant it.

Well you obviously don't mean it, because you keep trying to save face from your awful showing here. You've dumped hours into this thread and all you've managed to "correct" is that the "1400 civilian" lie began 6 days after the attack and not on the exact day of the attack, which isn't anything I ever claimed to begin with. The point and fact that it is a lie being uncritically acepted and continuously propagated in Western Media doesn't even faze you. But initially you were anxious to prove that the lie never existed beyond "social media" accounts and that legit news outlets always qualified their remark with "civilians and soldiers." But that claim has since been blown out of the water with the examples I provided over the course of a month now. So now here you are, reduced to "go to hell."

Your new chronology doesn't show what you claim at all. You are still including things other than media articles, which is what our disagreement is about.

There is no "new chronology" and I've provided numerous references with links from Chicago Times, Time Magazine, the AP, PBS, etc. If you weren't such a pedant and would address the actual point that matters (that western media is overwhelmingly pro-Israel) you'd just acknowledge this, but you cannot concede any points no matter how minor, and you want to portray me as the one who isn't interested in truth? I also provided examples of this lie being propagated by state officials. The point is the media has been pro-Israel from the get-go and yes, the 1400 civilian lie is being told even to this day. In fact, yesterday I watched Piers Morgan say it was actually 1,500 killed that day, even after Israel admitted their count overcounted by at least 200. This means the percentage of civilians is much less than what we had been told for weeks, again buttressing the point of the original post. Meanwhile, our own President casts doubt on the death toll in Gaza because we are conditioned to trust only the IDF.

You haven't shown any kind of consistent pattern of overstating civilian casualties even within a single media outlet, let alone across multiple media outlets.

And you haven't demonstrated the opposite, not that it would matter. The ADL broadcasted that commercial just a few days ago, and once they were the first ones to claim 1400 civilian deaths just six days after the attack the rest of the media uncritically repeated that claim. Because hey, you can't disagree with the ADL unless you want to be called antisemitic.

The reporting for weeks now has been a steady drumbeat describing the horror of what Israel is doing in Gaza. Exactly as it should be. What is occurring is horrific. That doesn't make your claim about the American media correct. it makes it wrong.

So the Media isn't wrong for continuously lying about 1400 Israeli civilians being killed on October 7, because it also talks about deaths in Gaza? You're smart enough to understand that one thing doesn't negate the other. Good reporting "sometimes" doesn't negate the bad reporting, and the bad reporting isn't limited to just incorrect death counts. It is the fact that when Israelis are killed it is always because of terrorism, but when Palestinians are killed, they are just collateral damage in "Israel's right to defend itself." The conflict is typically described as beginning with Hamas attacks, because the hundreds of Palestinians who were murdered by IDF and Israeli settlers in the previous years were never considered newsworthy.

Gruesome details of beheaded Israeli babies flooded the airwaves during the first week even though there was absolutely nothing to corroborate it, along with the big lie that Hamas bombed the hospital and then made up audio clip Israel pushed on our media. Sure, they stopped pushing that audio clip eventually, but only after the damage had already been done and it has become a viral meme that Israel is not at fault. The purpose of the lie was well served by the media but why isn't the media holding Israel accountable for the lie in the first place? They don't even talk about it anymore, and when they do, there are always idiots like you trying to minimize its significance, like trying to discredit the NYT employee who was in charge of investigating video evidence. So whether you want to admit it or not, you're part of the problem.

Your claim, and the claim of the source you cited, was a pro-israel media propaganda campaign consisting of a two-week barrage of misreporting what the 1400 figure was. It was false when you made the claim. It's still false. You haven't shown it.

I've provided a dozen examples of this lie being propagated by Western Media since October 13th and I could provide a dozen more.

I already showed you multiple example of correct reporting by the very sources you cherry picked from either on the same day or on adjacent days

If I'm wrong, there shouldn't be any cherries to pick. But there are, which proves me right. And these aren't just cherries. Talk about moving the goal posts. First you said it was only social media making these claims. Now that I prove it is also major news outlets saying this, you're whining because they don't always say this.

But your posts don't indicate to me any interest in the truth at all, so i won't waste my time.

Says the guy who is dying on the dumbest hill imaginable and is now reduced to "go to hell."

I don't think you understand at all how offensive it is for you to claim that my position is so unreasonable, it could only be made by a Jew.

Your position is just flat out dumb, and beyond the usual pedantry. So now you're going to pretend people engaged in public debate don't always disclose their background? Why are you so terrified to say whether or not you're Jewish? Why are you getting all upset at the question? If some anonymous internet pundit starts defending Joseph Smith's polygamy and his destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, is it really out of line to ask if he has an LDS background? Of course not.

Likewise, your defense of the notion that Israeli civilians aren't real civilians.

I've corrected you on this once already so you have no excuses here other than you're just being a despicable liar. I said that Hamas doesn't view them as Civilians and the fact that Israeli "civilians" regularly murder Palestinians goes ignored in the media. I followed up with evidence to this fact and you ignore it because it doesn't serve your narrative.

Do you really think that a Palestinian combatant, who was born and oppressed in occupied territory, who once watched his or her sibling brutally raped and murdered by an Israeli settler, saw his mother shot by a sniper for sport, watched his father's crops being burned to the ground, etc do you think he grows up and really cares about distinguishing between who is an Israeli civilian or soldier? The fact that Palestinians view all Israelis as military, is never even mentioned in today's media, let alone their reasons as to why they view them that way. Instead we get black and white logic and double standards. Any attacks on Israeli citizens is de facto "TERRORISM" and anyone on their shows making the case for Palestine must denounce Hamas as terrorists first otherwise the discussion cannot even proceed. Tell us Res, how many Palestinians have to die at the hands of Israeli "civilians" before we can call them terrorists?

vffd.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntzm9j6 ... ex=7&t=22s

But I'm sure, now that the israeli government has concluded and stated that 200 of the unidentified dead from October 7 were more likely Hamas terrorists, you'll be chasing a new rabbit.

Says the guy who buried himself in at least four rabbit holes of his own making.

[Res Ipsa]

You and Res are doing everything you always bitched and moaned about when people would call ajax a Nazi.

What are you talking about? Quote where I called you an anti-semite? You can't, because I haven't. My criticisms have been targeted at the words you've posted in this thread -- not you as a person. Attacking the person is your schtick.

ETA: You're simply running the same playbook over and over. (1) Make a false claim; (2) When shown the claim is false, change the claim, move the goalposts, and claim your real claim was something else; (3) Attack the honesty and integrity of the person who disagrees with you rather than addressing the evidence.

[Res Ipsa]

Veritas, I said go to hell. I meant it.

Your new chronology doesn't show what you claim at all. You are still including things other than media articles, which is what our disagreement is about. You still have cherry picked a handful of media articles out of literally thousands of stories and articles published by the media in the time frame your examples cover. You haven't shown any kind of consistent pattern of overstating civilian casualties even within a single media outlet, let alone across multiple media outlets.

The reporting for weeks now has been a steady drumbeat describing the horror of what Israel is doing in Gaza. Exactly as it should be. What is occurring is horrific. That doesn't make your claim about the American media correct. it makes it wrong.

Your claim, and the claim of the source you cited, was a pro-israel media propaganda campaign consisting of a two-week barrage of misreporting what the 1400 figure was. It was false when you made the claim. It's still false. You haven't shown it. I already showed you multiple example of correct reporting by the very sources you cherry picked from either on the same day or on adjacent days. If I thought you had the slightest interest in the truth, I could show you 10 correct descriptions of the 1400 figure in the same publication for every incorrect example you gave me. But your posts don't indicate to me any interest in the truth at all, so i won't waste my time.

I don't think you understand at all how offensive it is for you to claim that my position is so unreasonable, it could only be made by a Jew. Likewise, your defense of the notion that Israeli civilians aren't real civilians.

But I'm sure, now that the israeli government has concluded and stated that 200 of the unidentified dead from October 7 were more likely Hamas terrorists, you'll be chasing a new rabbit.

Count me out.

Hmmm...didn't read the remarks that led to this post but 5'll get ya 10 that they're filled with irrational hatred for Israel.

Just a guess.

Oh, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat. I don't see irrational hatred of Israel in V's posts.

[Res Ipsa]

Veritas, you've made a number of different claims based on the way the U.S. Media reported the 1400 figure (civilians only vs. total Israeli), starting with the quote you posted from a website:

In the interim, two weeks of blanket western media reporting that Hamas allegedly killed around 1,400 Israeli civilians during its 7 October military attack has served to inflame emotions and create the climate for Israel’s unconstrained destruction of the Gaza Strip and its civilian population.

To show "blanket" media reporting requires much more than scattered, incorrect reporting. A two week blanket of reporting would require evidence of continuous reporting of the same fact for two weeks, both within publications and across the entire range of "media." The article you cut and pasted from provided no evidence. The only evidence you've ever provided consists of several media articles, out of thousands of articles, that incorrectly described the 1400 figure. That's not a blanket anything, let alone a two week blanket.

You cited this statement as evidence of the media immediately leaping to pro-Israel narratives in the conflict, despite the complete absence of evidence in the original article. viewtopic.php?p=2849575#p2849575

You made the claim, you carry the burden of proof.

Since your initial claim, you've restated it a number of ways.

The point is the initial media reports of 1,400 civilian deaths was just pro-Israel propaganda like the 40 beheaded babies narrative.

viewtopic.php?p=2849587#p2849587

You've provided no evidence whatsoever that the several erroneous articles you've cited represented "pro-israel propaganda" as opposed mistaken reporting.

I didn't mean to suggest the very first report the day of the attack, I meant the initial reports after body counts were made

Your evidence doesn't support this version of your claim. You made no attempt to examine the "initial reports." You cherry picked single examples from different dates in a few media outlets.

On the 6th day Time Magazine reported 1,4000 [sic] civilian deaths and that became a staple that was repeated in regular media like the Washington Post. Hardly "smaller local" outlets.

This is 100% false, as I've shown earlier. You have shown nothing approaching something that "became a staple in regular media."

viewtopic.php?p=2849658#p2849658

Yes, you got me on the 1,4000 casualties but only on the point that it wasn't initially spread by popular news outlets. ... The 1,400 death count for civilians on Oct 7th, was spread however, and a more precise Google search would show that, though not on major outlets.

This is as close as you've come to an accurate description of what the media actually reported about the 1400 number. A more accurate description would be that the 1400 figure was correctly reported as total Israeli casualties by the U.S. media in thousands of news stories. It was incorrectly reported in a small number of articles, most of which resulted from an error in a single AP wire story. (yes, you double counted the AP story -- read your sources).

viewtopic.php?p=2849686#p2849686

With respect to the 1400 "civilians" within the first two weeks, that quote comes from the article I cited, and you're going to hold my feet to the fire as if it is the same thing as me saying it. Fine.

Damn straight. You cited the article as evidence for your claim without any limitation, qualification or argument. You're still claiming it's true.

Regarding my follow up comment that "initial media reports of 1400 civilian deaths", well that's actually an ambiguous statement. Does it mean all initial reports period, or does it mean only those reports that initially reported 1400 civilian deaths? I already told you I obviously wasn't referring to the very first reports because none of those reports included death counts.

[Emphasis added.]

Okay, now we've moved from orginal claim of two weeks of "blanket" coverage to those news outlets that reported "1400 civilian deaths" before they reported "1400 total Israeli deaths." Out of the total number of media outlets in the U.S., you've given only a handful of examples. And you've provided no evidence that even those outlets initially reported the 1400 figure correctly. On which day did the Chicago Tribune first report the 1400 casualty figure? How did it describe it? Same question for other examples. Given the spread of dates you included, it's highly improbable that any of the news reports you cited are that outlet's first report. So, give us some actual evidence of what you claim.

Whenever something like this happens it takes time for exact death counts to be made, and the initial reports didn't include any exact numbers, only guesstimates. But once the dust had settled, the media did in fact push this false number which appears to be begin with the ADL just six days after the attack. Once they did this, the media ran with it without question.

[Emphasis added.]

Show me "the media" "running with" the incorrect description without question. Not single, scattered reports from different news sources that correctly reported the figure correctly before and after your example. You reported exactly one article from the two leading newspapers in the United States, the New York Times and the Washington Post, and you were 100% wrong about that article because you didn't bother reading it.

The fact that the media is still pushing this lie even a full month later is telling, and pretty much makes my point much better than if it had said 1400 civilians in the beginning and then later changed their tune as more information came in.

You're playing completely fast and loose with the term "the media." You found one article in Time Magazine, which is clearly an opinion piece and not factual reporting, on November 8. That's not "the media" "pushing" anything. That's you spouting the same hyperbolic BS you started out with.

That article was published October 24th, and I have already established above that what it asserted is true. From at least October 13 through November 8th, the Western Media is still pushing this lie about 1400 murdered civilians.

That's flat out false. You haven't come anywhere close to proving the existence of "blanket reporting" of the incorrect description of the 1400 number for the two weeks prior to October 24 or any other two-week period. You haven't even shown that any of the media publications you've cited consistently reported the total incorrectly over a period of a couple days.

If you're willing to put your hyperbolic BS to the test, you've just identified the test period: October 13 through November 8. Now let's pick 10 representative mainstream media sources: you pick 5 and I'll pick 5. No ADL commercials. No National Review. No Tabloid rags. Then let's do the best we can with our combined efforts to see how many times the 1400 was mentioned in a news story. No guest op-eds -- actual news reporting.

Now, here is where the rubber hits the road. Are we going to test "blanket reporting" or "pushing this lie." If the former, I'd propose to set the standard at 90% of stories that mention the 1400 figure during that period describe it as "civilian causualties" as opposed to "civilian or military casualties". If the the latter, I don't think it would be correct to describe a media outlet as "pushing the lie" unless at least 2/3 of the stories published in that period that mentioned the 1400 figure described it incorrectly.

This is an absolutely sincere proposal, but I doubt you'll take it for a couple of reasons. First, you've obviously googled your heart out and you know you'd be lucky to a percentage of incorrect reporting beyond a few percent. If there were really evidence of "the media" pushing a lie or blanket reporting a lie, you'd be able to show consistent reporting of the lie by the same media outlet and across a broad range of mainstream media outlets over a sustained period of time. And you can't. If you could, you'd be crowing about winning some kind of dick measuring competition that you're obsessed with.

Second, although you can't bring yourself to simply let go of a bad argument, you've clearly moved the initial goalposts (specific claim about how the media reported a specific number) all the way to here:

If you weren't such a pedant and would address the actual point that matters (that western media is overwhelmingly pro-Israel) you'd just acknowledge this, but you cannot concede any points no matter how minor, and you want to portray me as the one who isn't interested in truth?

This goalpost shift is analogous to claiming that the Russians assassinated Martin Luther King. Then, when shown overwhelming evidence that the Russians did not assassinate MLK, retorting "well, the point is that the Russians assassinated a lot of people."

Here's the point about our dispute over how the media, especially the U.S. media, is actually reporting the Israel-Gaza conflict that is important to me. Anti-semitism is based on a number of long-standing tropes that have been asserted for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. One of those is that a cabal of Jews secretly control the world. Read the Protocols, if you already haven't. Or the Hamas charter. I suspect you recognize that when it comes from the right in the form of using Soros as an all-purpose boogeyman.

But a modern version of those tropes is that Jews control the media, including the U.S. media. And when you falsely accuse the US media of some sort of pro-Israel propaganda campaign, whether you intend it or not (and I don't think you do), you are feeding that trope.

Look at your reaction to me simply disagreeing with your claims about how the media reported the 1400 number. Even though I'm 100% correct that you have not shown anything like the evidence required to demonstrate that claim, you asked me if I was a Jew, as if only that could explain why I was disagreeing with your BS claim. Now, apply that logic to the thousands of media outlets that represent the US media and that you claim are pushing pro-Israeli propaganda. What could possibly explain thousands of media outlets outright lying to the American public about Israeli civilian casualty totals?

Whether you intend it or not, you're feeding anti-Semitic tropes by making a 100% false claim about how the U.S. media reported the 1400 casualty figure. But you're so focussed on the dick measuring contest you think you're in that you either don't see it or you don't care. You're happy make false statements over and over again about a specific issue because you're sure you're right about some more general claim that I've never addressed.

It is absolutely possible to advocate for one party or another in the current conflict based on actual facts. It is absolutely possible to criticize Hamas or the Government of Israel without appealing to Islamaphobia or anti-semitism. But it requires thinking instead of emotionally reacting. Making a false factual claim that feeds either Islamaphobia or anti-semitism is indefensible. And that what you've repeatedly done with your description of how the US media reported the 1400 figure. You've turned scattered erroneous descriptions in news stories into something that sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. One that you would recognize immediately if the source were the alt-right.

[Gunnar]

What I know for sure about the Israeli Hamas conflict is that there are bad actors and villains on both sides of the conflict and that both sides deserve plenty of blame for the many decades of conflict and unrelenting hatred that led up to it. I am also convinced that the rank-and-file Palestinians, especially the residents of the Gaza Strip, have been the most unjustly and inhumanely harmed and exploited by both Israel and their own leaders (especially Hamas) during the years since the mandated establishment of the Modern nation of Israel and Zionism. I can't help but wonder if both Jews worldwide and Palestinians might have been better off today if not for the Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration.

The whole conflict seems so stupid, unnecessary and selfish and could so easily be ended tomorrow if both sides could just acknowledge that and agree to an immediate cease fire and vow to work together to address the legitimate grievances and humanitarian needs of the long-suffering Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and live up to the Golden Rule that both sides' religions profess to believe in.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What I know for sure about the Israeli Hamas conflict is that there are bad actors and villains on both sides of the conflict and that both sides deserve plenty of blame for the many decades of conflict and unrelenting hatred that led up to it. I am also convinced that the rank-and-file Palestinians, especially the residents of the Gaza Strip, have been the most unjustly and inhumanely harmed and exploited by both Israel and their own leaders (especially Hamas) during the years since the mandated establishment of the Modern nation of Israel and Zionism. I can't help but wonder if both Jews worldwide and Palestinians might have been better off today if not for the Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration.

The whole conflict seems so stupid, unnecessary and selfish and could so easily be ended tomorrow if both sides could just acknowledge that and agree to an immediate cease fire and vow to work together to address the legitimate grievances and humanitarian needs of the long-suffering Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and live up to the Golden Rule that both sides' religions profess to believe in.

It is very stupid. I believe the two-state solution is a fantasy, and the moral solution to this mess would be to end apartheid in Israel, affirm equal rights for Palestinians, and pursue reconciliation under one democratic regime. Of course, there would still be a significant imbalance of political power due to the Jewish community constituting the ethnic majority and possessing more wealth, not to mention a supremacist attitude toward Palestinians.

- Doc

[Gunnar]

It is very stupid. I believe the two-state solution is a fantasy, and the moral solution to this mess would be to end apartheid in Israel, affirm equal rights for Palestinians, and pursue reconciliation under one democratic regime. Of course, there would still be a significant imbalance of political power due to the Jewish community constituting the ethnic majority and possessing more wealth, not to mention a supremacist attitude toward Palestinians.

- Doc

I can't help but agree with that. Why is so hard for both sides of the conflict to see that they both would be far better off if they could just stop hating each other and start treating each other as equals and friends?

Peace is Possible for Israel and Gaza—If Their Leaders Want It

This may be a once-in-a-century opportunity for peace. True, things have never looked this bad, and odds are they will be getting worse. But this savage war also exposes the conflict’s darkest secret: its vicious cycle of humiliation, resentment and revenge is driven by power-famished fanatics treating people, including their own, as dispensable “things.” What perpetuates the conflict is thinking about it as an Israeli-Palestinian. Instead, we should see it as a war against zealots on both sides, a war which Arabs and Jews, Israelis and Palestinians, can only win if they wage it together. We must transform the conflict to resolve it.

By now, both Israelis and Palestinians are so vastly disillusioned with the vain vows of their self-serving leaders—their destructive hubris is so painfully plain in sight—that there may be a rare willingness on both sides to brave a breakthrough.

Now is the time to oust the radicals, to create a grand coalition of moderate forces in the region, and outline Principles for Peace. We’ve been through the worst nightmare; it’s time we dare pursue the dream. If we don’t, we may regret it for generations.

Hamas epitomizes selfish zealotry on the Palestinian side. Its leaders, some of whom bask in huge wealth, could care less about their 2.4 million subjects, half of whom live in extreme poverty. They have bigger plans. As Hamas Leader Khaled Mash’al recently confirmed, once Hamas is done with Israel, which “is even weaker than the spider’s web… We will march further and enforce the Shari’a of Muhammad... On this Earth.” And on this, Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad explained, they are blameless: “Israel must be annihilated… We are the victim of occupation. Period. Nobody can blame us for anything we do. On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,000—everything we do is justified.”

I am also quite sure that one of the most intractable impediments to ending the conflict is that international arms dealers are making huge profits from selling arms to both sides and thus have a strong financial incentive to continually stir up and perpetuate the hatred and animosity that prevents peaceful solutions to ending the conflict once and for all.

[Vēritās]

While Res is in hyper denial over the US Media's pushing of Israel narratives uncritically, we turn our attention to the latest exhibits demonstrating the absurd levels of Pro-Israel propaganda being pushed on our airwaves.

Yesterday I watched in disgust as Morning Joe insisted over and over that this "All started because of Hama's attack." It was as if he were reading a script. There was no acknowledgment of any of the hundreds of murders committed by IDF and Israeli settlers in previous years, because that would require understanding context. But calling one side "evil" is nothing short of dehumanizing them. He then went on to attack Harvard student groups who signed a letter that was Pro-Palestinian, and though he never quoted a single word from the letter, he screamed at the top of his lungs, "NOT PRO-PALESTINIAN, THEY ARE PRO-HAMAS!" So all of the potential demonization and failure to grasp nuance that Res has been trying to foist on me, is actually in the media I've been condemning as overwhelmingly biased. People can decided for themselves who is actually fighting the good fight.

Virtually every show I've seen that has been trying to host a "debate" from both sides, has required all of their hosts from the Palestinian side to preface their position that Hamas is a terrorist group and one other guy on Piers Morgan took it a step further and demanded he call them "evil." Talk about poisoning the well. Typically they refuse to do so without also demanding everyone acknowledge Israel is also being terrorists when they slaughter innocent civilians, at which point chaos ensues and everyone starts screaming at each other.

Just yesterday CNN allows IDF to make a false claim about a simple Arabic calendar, claiming it proves Hamas is using Hospitals as command centers. CNN didn't bother to do the minimum to verify any of this before trotting out to their millions of viewers. And none of the IDF's so called "proof" that hospitals are Hamas command centers has been independently verified by any news organization, but don't let that stop them from spreading the IDF's claims anyway. Because you see, Israel tells the truth, always. Hamas, those dirty Muslims, well, they hide behind children and then lie about it. That's the premise we're supposed to blindly accept every time it.

And check this out. Medhi Hasan hosts an Israel spokesperson who flat out denies Israel has killed any children at all. This is the absurd level of gaslighting we're expected to tolerate from Israel's apologists, and if we push back, the emotionally unhinged who are effectively carrying the water for Netanyahu, accuse you of fostering hate, encouraging hate crimes, being too emotional bla bla bla. Truth be damned right?

Why doesn't our media talk about all of the innocent people killed by Israel prior to these terrorist attacks? Because their narrative always has to begin whenever Hamas attacks, that way all killings by Israel after that can be easily spun as "self defense." Any educated scholar trying to bring nuance and context to the table is almost always attacked as being pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism and an antisemite.

Two-year-old Palestinian toddler shot by Israeli soldiers dies.

Man shot dead by IDF in front of cameras.

But we can't talk about any of these things in public because....

Full List of Journalists Fired Over Pro-Palestinian Remarks

Job offers have been pulled for Harvard students who expressed their criticism of Israel, Palestinian journalists are being fired left and right because any criticism of Israel is going to be considered antisemitism. And if you try protesting the occupation as an Israeli, well you just might find yourself in jail. Jesus Christ, where is our first amendment champion when you need him? Res once called me a fascist because I suggested fake news outlets that have no journalistic standards should not be allowed to categorize themselves as real news, but he then buries his head in the sand when it comes to the explicit first amendment violations we're seeing every day in American all in the name of pushing the Zionist narratives. Instead, he's bending over backwards trying to poo poo on any suggesting, no matter what the evidence is, that western media is overtly pro-Israel.

This is the same BS we got after 9/11 when nobody wanted to do the actual work required to figure out why we were attacked. Instead, the media narrative felt comfortable with, "They hate our freedoms." So America responded by planting as many American flags as they could around their homes, on their cars, etc. No, those terrorists didn't martyr themselves because they envy us over our freedoms. And no, Hamas isn't attacking Israel because they are just born evil and don't care about life. They're not doing it because of anything their religion tells them. That's the lazy way of explaining things and I'm sick and tired of hearing "pundits" on our airwaves pushing this horse crap. This idea that anyone can defeat Hamas with weapons of wars is ridiculous. The more Palestinians you oppress and murder the more future Hamas recruits you end up creating. We refuse to learn any lessons from the past, and we have lost our moral compass completely when we not only ignore the genocide being committed by Israel, but support and fund it.

At some point we as a nation need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves why the fuq we keep treating Israel differently. Why do we keep funding them and then turn a blind eye to all of their recklessness that we've never tolerate from any other country? Americans are getting fed up. Biden is seeing numerous people resign because they're against his support for these killings and refuses to put any limits on Israel's war crimes.

But I guess this is to be expected from our country that has turned a blind eye whenever Israel has killed American citizens.

[Vēritās]

Did you know in 1967 during the six day war we had an American communications ship off of the coast of Egypt with an American flag waving proudly, just before Israel attacked it killing dozens of Americans and wounding many others? The US government covered it up saying it was an accident because that is what Israel said, but recent interviews with those who survived, along with released audio clips of the communications between Israel and their fighter jet leaves no doubt that they knew precisely that it was an American ship, but they wanted to sink it anyway because it was likely spying and intercepting communications they didn't want us to hear. They napalmed the ship and shot five torpedoes at it while the crew were struggling to get a message out to the American fleet 500 miles away. They couldn't because the Israelis were jamming theirs signals and kept trying to sink them. It wasn't until the ship was able to finally get off a message to the nearby fleet that the Israelis started to act surprised that it was American. This is truly an astonishing story and I highly recommend sitting through the entirety of these interviews along with the evidence presented. The short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVm2GUhR6s

Longer version with interviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx72tAWVcoM

June 3, 2010 -- A U.S. citizen who lived in Turkey is among the nine people killed when Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish aid ship heading for the Gaza Strip, officials said today. The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency. - https://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/america ... d=10814848

Documents reveal how US let Israel off the hook over ‘execution’ of American Furkan Dogan -

Mahmoud Shaalan was a 16-year-old teenager from Florida who had moved to Deir Dibwan, his family’s village near Ramallah. On February 26, 2016, an Israeli soldier fatally shot him at a checkpoint while Mahmoud tried to cross on his way to visit his aunt. The army said Mahmoud tried to stab a soldier. But a witness I spoke with as part of my investigation into the killing for The Intercept said that Mahmoud was shot when his hands were up, and that he had no knife out. A Palestinian ambulance driver who arrived to the scene shortly after the shots were fired said Israeli soldiers shut down the checkpoint where Mahmoud was killed and prevented medical workers from accessing Mahmoud as he lay on the ground, bleeding. Mahmoud died later that day. - https://theintercept.com/2017/10/18/pal ... d-shaalan/

In October 2014, Israeli soldiers killed Orwa Hammad, a 14-year-old Palestinian-American from Louisiana. The army said Hammad was throwing a Molotov cocktail at the time of his death. Palestinians said he was among a group throwing rocks at soldiers. Once again, there was no Congressional outrage, and no questions raised about yet another incident where heavily armed soldiers shot a teenager to death. - https://forward.com/news/israel/208232/ ... tragedies/

Omar Abdulmajeed Asaad was an American citizen in Palestine driving home through his village when he was reportedly pulled out of his car by IDF soldiers who aggressively handled him, handcuffed him with plastic zip ties, gagged his mouth, blindfolded him and forced him to lie on his stomach. Soldiers then dragged him for about 200 meters and beat him to death. His nephew said there were about 40 soldiers just watching this handcuffed elderly man, aged 80, be repeatedly hit by armed soldiers across his entire body. Asad suffered from a subsequent heart attack, and was left to die on the ground, unconscious and handcuffed. - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elderly- ... 24bb966cb5

[Vēritās]

What I know for sure about the Israeli Hamas conflict is that there are bad actors and villains on both sides of the conflict and that both sides deserve plenty of blame for the many decades of conflict and unrelenting hatred that led up to it. I am also convinced that the rank-and-file Palestinians, especially the residents of the Gaza Strip, have been the most unjustly and inhumanely harmed and exploited by both Israel and their own leaders (especially Hamas) during the years since the mandated establishment of the Modern nation of Israel and Zionism. I can't help but wonder if both Jews worldwide and Palestinians might have been better off today if not for the Zionist movement and the Balfour Declaration.

The whole conflict seems so stupid, unnecessary and selfish and could so easily be ended tomorrow if both sides could just acknowledge that and agree to an immediate cease fire and vow to work together to address the legitimate grievances and humanitarian needs of the long-suffering Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and live up to the Golden Rule that both sides' religions profess to believe in.

It is very stupid. I believe the two-state solution is a fantasy, and the moral solution to this mess would be to end apartheid in Israel, affirm equal rights for Palestinians, and pursue reconciliation under one democratic regime. Of course, there would still be a significant imbalance of political power due to the Jewish community constituting the ethnic majority and possessing more wealth, not to mention a supremacist attitude toward Palestinians.

- Doc

Noam Chomsky calls it Jewish Supremacy, which is basically the same as White Supremacy and the same conditions black people had to endure during Jim Crow.