Israel/Palestine Thread

You mean they failed to disclosed that his father was a senior hamas member? Hamas, being a proscribed terrorist organisation. You really dont see any issue with a taxpayer funded outlet doing that? It amounts to broadcasting terrorist propaganda. They also mistranslated phrases like "jihad against the jews" to "resistance". OFCOM haven't "accused" the bbc of breaching the rules, its a ruling against them of misleading the public, because thats what they did.

Israel also attacked and executed those at the concert and kibbutzim - so by your measure, they are a death cult too.

See, this shows you’re not debating in good faith. I stopped reading there. Bye now.

And as has been pointed out to you previously Israelis have voted in an alleged war criminal time and again over the last 30 years. When it suits you you'll try to excuse certain facts whilst complaining about others doing the same. You can also make of it of what you will that 47 per cent of Israelis endorse killing everyone in a city the IDF newly occupies. Israelis also thought what was going on in Gaza was great craic as they held viewing parties to watch it.

So the facts are bloodlust and support for terrorism exist on both sides, but due to your craven hypocrisy you are only keen to highlight it on one side. If people voting for Hamas should be banned, so to should anyone minded to vote for likud. Perhaps both Hamas and Likud should be barred from running for 10 years?

By the way is the Holocaust surviour who approved the warrant for Bibi an anti semitie or Hamas sympathiser- it will be something along those lines rather than accept the truth. It's funny how opinion that favours your apologists narrative is given credence while opinion from experts that criticise Israel are either anti semities , hamas sympathiser or duped . You sound exactly like apologists for other rogue regimes. The irony is you'd likely ridicule them for using the exact same tactics you utilise.

Are you really saying that an interview with a 13 year old whose family was NOT affiliated to Hamas would have been so similar in tone as to make no difference?

If you think that, then perhaps you can explain why Hamas are currently torturing and murdering people for such treasonous acts as letting themselves be filmed thanking the GHF for food before the ceasefire? Because it does seem like they wanted to ensure there would be no awkward asides as to whether Hamas might have had any responsibility for the disaster the Gazans were going through. And while you might think that’s unimportant, Hamas certainly don’t.

And actually IMO there’s a bigger problem with the broadcast, and that’s the translation - though it’s so frequent in the English-language coverage generally that there’s not been nearly as much publicity about it. But I presume it was also part of why it was removed: when the boy-narrator or the people he “interviewed” used expressions like “fighting the Jews”, or “Jihad”, these were translated as “resistance to Israel” or even “fighting oppression”:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/ff56d884ebe30730
https://Twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1894431030800433414

When people are claiming that anti Zionism is unrelated to anti semitism, and “globalise the intifada”, that’s such a slant on the real meanings that it can only have been done deliberately.

18 October 2025 16:25

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has rejected Israel’s appeal to cancel arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.

Israel and the US protecting its traitors

Israeli fighter jets carried out air strikes on Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, on Sunday, in the latest reported violation of the ceasefire.

Israel’s Channel 12 reported the strikes were intended to protect members of the Yasser Abu Shabab militia - an Israeli-backed gang accused of stealing humanitarian aid and attacking Palestinian civilians during Israel's two-year genocidal war on Gaza.

Palestinian outlet Quds Network cited an unnamed source saying that a Hamas‑led internal security unit carried out an operation targeting a hideout belonging to Yasser Abu Shabab east of Rafah.

LOL how is you telling le what I think (about an unproven claim to boot) “facts”?

You mistake your opinion for facts. Even if it were proven that the Hannibal directive was officially used on civilians, that still doesn’t make the IDF a death cult. For multiple reasons. Thats such nonsense that you can’t expect to be taken seriously.

That the Israeli leadership is currently dodging arrest warrants for war crimes shows they dont respect international law. I guess the people that say israel "over reacted" just wanted them to not comit war crimes.

Nothing there says that Israel attacked and murdered concert goers. Gallant says that he thinks that in the absence of contact from the chain of command, SOME commanders on the ground may have decided to do anything to prevent the hostages from being taken alive into Gaza, while others didn’t. No official investigation has been carried out so it’s not proven.

In any case, if such a decision was made by some officers, the subsequent treatment of many of the hostages does explain why this may have seemed like a least-worst scenario to some individual IDF commanders who found themselves having to make decisions that were above their level of responsibility - and whether right or wrong, that is still very different to Sinwar’s deliberate strategy of broadcasting Hamas’ violent acts against civilians so as to cause terror among ordinary Israelis.

An intercepted memo shows that Mr. Sinwar wanted his fighters to target civilians from the outset, contradicting what the group’s leadership has publicly claimed

“Two or three operations, in which an entire neighborhood, kibbutz, or something similar will be burned, must be prepared,” the memo said.In an echo to the memo, just before 10 a.m. on Oct. 7, a commander from a Gaza City battalion referred to as Abu Muhammed told subordinates: “Start setting homes on fire.”“Burn, burn,” he said, according to the intercepts. “I want the whole kibbutz to be in flames.”“Set fire to anything,” a commander in the northern Gaza city of Jabaliya referred to as Abu al-Abed said around the same time.

I don’t apply the same standard because the same standard doesn’t apply in international law. 

So you feel free to call a whole group, millions of men and women who make up group of extremely marginalized people, a death cult who would rather kill than love their children, because of international law?

I can suspect other reasons for you doing this. My reason for this suspicion is you clearly cherry pick pieces of international law to hide behind whilst ignoring or castigating others.

Israel's leaders are wanted for crimes against humanity by the ICC, the same accusations that the Nuremberg trials were conducted under, and you don't seem to to accept that, or that they should hand themselves in.

Under international law, mass starvation is a warcrime. Blowing up a building of civilians to get a Hamas terrorist is a warcrime, let alone a street, let alone a town, let alone a city. Proportionality also is a facet of international law, so your argument above is in contravention to this.

So claiming your pov is in adherence to international law is not valid imo. It is a tool for you to hide behind when casting awful aspersions on a people (for some reason), whilst ignoring a 50X more violent entity and regime, and the laws it is constantly breaking.

You need to square that up with yourself and maybe look at your language and why you apply it.

And what exactly would Israel have been entitled to do in response to Oct 7, in your view?

I would imagine a reluctance for people answering this is the adherent bias in the question.

You are defacto arguing that what most organizations have (correctly imo) deemed as genocide as an inevitable and unavoidable response to what was, and I'm not trying to downplay it, a violent terrorist attack.

You are arguing that it is normal and acceptable for anti terror operations to include the mass murder of women and children (I believe 60-65% have been from this group?) rendering Gaza the most dangerous place in the world for children and women.

You are arguing as inevitable the complete annihilation of neighborhoods, streets, cities and towns, the bombing of hospitals, the bombing of refugee camps, the shelling of school buildings sheltering civilians, and on and on, all whilst happy that almost no proof has been made available for the people attacked. You are saying there is no other way for this to proceed outside of starving everybody.

You are arguing it acceptable for politicians to incite genocide in its people (over 500 examples were submitted to the ICJ).

You are arguing that it is fine for Israel, despite not knowing where it's hostages were being held, indiscriminately bombing the whole enclave, which in itself shows how little they valued them, and in fact valued killing over their lives.

Given the above, do you genuinely not think they could, or should, have done anything differently?