Over 1300 Israeli civilians have died from Palestinian terror attacks in the past 20 years. Thousands more injured. — BitconnectCarlos

Source? According to this (quoting the Israeli ministry for foreign affairs) it's roughly 1,000 since 2021. The IRA killed a similarly large number in their 20-year campaign (now ended), approximately 600.

I don't know — BitconnectCarlos

Correct. And the fact that you don't know but appear intent on gerrymandering your definition just so it fits Hamas but not the IRA again suggests I am right in my thesis. That is, yes there are some differences but none so significant as the difference between the army sending planes in that kill hundreds of civilians in a matter of days vs. the army never using nor even contemplating using heavy artillery on civilians.

You'd have to be out of your mind to compare the IRA to Palestinian terror:

From a magazine piece:

Unlike Islamic radicalism, Irish nationalism has always been somewhat ideologically underdeveloped. Nonetheless, a few things can be said with certainty about the worldview of the Provisional IRA. Most importantly, perhaps, the Provos did not see the conflict as a zero-sum game. They did not advocate the genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Protestant majority, did not claim that London was the true capital of Ireland, and were not motivated by an ideology of racial or religious supremacism. Their slogan “Brits Out!” referred to the British state alone, not the Protestant community loyal to it.

On a larger scale, the Provisional IRA did not see itself as just one part of a grand holy war against the presence of a Protestant community in Northern Ireland. Unlike Hamas, the Provos never had the benefit of an Iran or a Qatar to provide it with consistent material and moral support. They did not enjoy the solidarity of a global movement of fundamentalist Catholics willing to use terrorism and mass murder to achieve their religious aims. Nor did they have a growing chorus of sympathizers in the Western liberal democracies. At best, they had to rely on the occasional gift of arms from the crazed Libyan tyrant Muammar Qaddafi and what money deluded immigrants in the bars of Boston and New York could be persuaded to part with.

http://www.thetower.org/1429-the-tower-magazine-why-the-ira-is-nothing-like-hamas/

The cruelty of Palestinian terror far outweighs that used by the IRA. The more research I do into the types of attacks conducted by the IRA vs. Palestinian terror the more these organizations become drastically different. I'm not really into an argument here: The two aren't remotely close. Just look into the 2nd Intifata.

Source? According to this (quoting the Israeli ministry for foreign affairs) it's roughly 1,000 since 2021. The IRA have killed a similarly large number, approximately 600. — Baden

I don't know, a discrepancy of 400 civilian deaths is really the tipping point for me. Those 400 civilian deaths would mandate forced eviction of some people south of the currently established border and an air stike on the HQ of An Phoblacht in Dublin. (sarcasm)

yes there are some differences but none so significant as the difference between the army sending planes in that kill hundreds of civilians in a matter of days vs. the army never using nor even contemplating using heavy artillery on civilians. — Baden

The stuff you raised is largely irrelevant. The stated justification for the strikes is Israel defending itself against attacks on its soldiers and civilians, not punishing Hamas for being religious nutters who say crazy outrageous things. Otherwise, we should send planes into the deep south and bomb the Christian fundamentalist nuts.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48521788.
Alabama mayor suggested 'killing out' gay people
"The only way to change it would be to kill the problem out. I know it's bad to say but with out [sic] killing them out there's no way to fix it."

I guess we're justified in bombing Alabama then.

The cruelty of Palestinian terror far outweighs that used by the IRA. The more research I do into the types of attacks conducted by the IRA vs. Palestinian terror the more these organizations become drastically different. I'm not really into an argument here: The two aren't remotely close. Just look into the 2nd Intifata. — BitconnectCarlos

On the other hand, the actions of the British Army during "Operation Banner" and the actions of the Israeli Armed Forces toward the Palestinians are also different, one should remember.

The British have rare examples of successes in counterinsurgency warfare (Oman, Malaya) and perhaps understand these things better. And it shows in how they dealt with North Ireland.

(British troops in their "Vietnam", during the Malayan emergency. Notice the difference between the whole narrative between the war in Vietnam and the war in Malaysia.)


The failure of Israel to understand this is a political one. It can be seen at best from the failed Lebanon occupation. As one military study puts it aptly:

Israel, a country that had achieved four spectacular military victories
in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, invaded Lebanon out of its belief in the
singular efficacy of military force, a belief borne of its previous experiences
with war. However, Israel’s strategic concept behind the Lebanese debacle
was wrong-headed. Israel believed that in the Palestinians and later in the
Shiite resistance, it faced a military problem that could be resolved through
resort to conventional war. It did not understand, as its opponents did, that
the strategic problems it sought to address could not be resolved without
settling the fundamental underlying political issues that had caused war in
the first place. Neither Palestinians nor Shiite militants ever tried seriously
to mount a conventional military attack against Israeli forces; they never
had the capability even if they had desired to take such action. Both groups
acted to preserve their military forces to the greatest extent possible,
eschewing high-risk attacks to ensure that Israel could never destroy all of
their fighters. And because they were supported, fed, and nurtured by their
peoples, the Palestinian and Shiite fighters created an impossible situation
for Israel.

We can cut through all the distractions. Is it ok to bomb civilian populations in which so-called terrorist operatives are embedded when these operatives present a threat (though a relatively low-level one compared to said bombings) to civilian lives on the opposing side? If it is, it should be OK in the case of both the IRA and HAMAS and their respective communites of origin. If it's not, it shouldn't, right?

"Yes I went on the protest, it was the right thing to do: we are fighting the occupation,” said Khaled Hussein, 20, who like his friend Samir, is unemployed. “Of course people were angry but we did not attack the police. They started shooting and we had to run to save ourselves.”

“I knew Muhammed [Ishaq Hamid], he was a good man. He was shot and we hoped that he would recover, but he died in hospital. We were protesting not just about the killings taking place in Gaza but also what the Israelis are doing in Jerusalem, taking peoples’ homes. They will continue to try to take our land, and we will continue to resist back. There is no one helping us, so we need to stand up for ourselves.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-gaza-abbas-ramallah-israel-b1853025.html

These, btw, are some of Bitconnect's cartoon terrorists who are so much worse than the IRA, Israel are justified in killing as many Palestinian civilians as necessary to take them out.

Again, dehumanization, racism, and bigotry, just the things he accuses the other side of, are what he himself appears to be steeped in. Same goes for the rest of the apologists. Please wake up to yourselves.

Bitconnect's cartoon terrorists — Baden

You're a ridiculous person.

I'll keep my failings rather than suffer yours, but that's neither here nor there. Your depiction of the Palestinian resistance was entirely one-sided, stereotyped, shallow and, yes, cartoonish. This is a sample of the side you'd rather not talk about. Both extremes are involved in fighting Israel and both are given similar treatment for it.

When you use that term it shows me that you have a complete inability to emphasize with Jewish victims of terrorism and don't ever, ever pretend otherwise.

This is classic projection. From my time on this site, and unlike you, I have the posts to prove it, what triggers me most is attacks on innocents, particularly children. It doesn't matter a hoot to me what color, religion, or ethnicity they are and for you to suggest it does is very distasteful to say the least. It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread.

It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread. — Baden

Israel could disassemble its bomb shelters and anti-missile infrastructure so the kill counts would be more even, would you like that? It could also stop its blockade of Gaza so more weapons could be imported.

First read this. Your chance to retract is now.

Palestinian suicide bombers are not martyrs in my eyes, they're murderers, as are all those who target or disregard the lives of innocent civilians, and those who carry out and support such crimes are the only ones who bear responsibility for them. — Baden

Israel doesn't use its civilians as human shields; but, I've heard Hamas does.

I'm glad to hear that; try to be a little more sensitive with your language next time and don't accuse people of talking about "cartoon terrorists" when these terrorists are very real.

Define "using" as a human shield? If it extends to someone from Hamas entered your house therefore Israel has a right to kill you just to get at him then you may want to do a thought experiment of how you;d view the situation if a guerilla operative decided to use your home as shelter. I have a feeling though you are not trying. Try harder.

Define "using" as a human shield? If it extends to someone from Hamas entered your house therefore Israel has a right to kill you just to get at him then you may want to do a thought experiment of how you;d view the situation if a guerilla operative decided to use your home as shelter. I have a feeling though you are not trying. Try harder. — Baden

I don't think the comparison is appropriate with regards to "invading a house".

I was under the impression that Hamas was utilizing buildings in their sector to launch attacks where civilians lived in also and hadn't evacuated in time before their bombing.

I'm looking it up.

Obviously. It's your one-sided description which I objected to. If you want to justify Israel's response then you have to accurately describe who and what it is responding to. Not every member or supporter of Hamas is a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatic completely lacking in empathy (though some obviously are). And this was central to your attempt to forge a distinction between Hamas and the IRA and so a relevant point of contention.

Much of this thread has discussed this matter as though it is necessary to decide who is in the right. Hamas or Israel? When the only sensible answer is that they're both in the wrong. Even many of the critics of Israel seem to think we need to justify Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organisation, otherwise, we can't condemn Israel properly, this is not the case.

Much of this thread has discussed this matter as though it is necessary to decide who is in the right. Hamas or Israel? When the only sensible answer is that they're both in the wrong. Even many of the critics of Israel seem to think we need to justify Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organisation, otherwise, we can't condemn Israel properly, this is not the case. — Judaka

Yeah, but, taking the tenants hostage in your house isn't often mentioned when using it as a launching base for mortars and rockets towards Israel.

My one sided description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I've never pretended to be a neutral bystander. I'm an American Jew with family in Israel and historical ties there.

If someone wants to claim neutrality that's their own delusion. What news sources do they watch? Who do they listen to? Who's story have they heard? Do they understand the region and its history and not just imposing their own cultural attitudes on Middle Eastern people?

they're both in the wrong — Judaka

I wouldn't dispute that but again, there are inconsistencies with how people view what's a justified response in contexts differing in little other of relevance apart from the ethnicities of those involved. Martin McGuinness was known to be the commander of the IRA by the British for years, for example, but in the end they couldn't even arrest him due to lack of evidence (i.e. respect for the rule of law). The idea that they would have sent planes in to bomb his house and kill him, his entire family and maybe his neighbours too is just ludicrous yet when Israel does exactly that, all of a sudden, it's not only not ludicrous, but justified. My thesis that racism, bigotry, Islamaphobia etc. is involved may be wrong. But there is a huge disparity in response compared to relatively small differences in context.

That's not how it works. Yes, we all have our conscious and unconscious biases, goes without saying, but If you're just here to rah rah for the Israelis because you relate to them more then you're openly admitting to not even attempting to engage in an ethical (philosophical) conversation.

That's not what I'm saying and I've had great, productive convos with several other posters here. And no, I'm not just here to "rah rah" for Israel. I'm providing a moderate Zionist voice in a discussion where that voice is often not represented.

Shawn, Israel has bombed civilian infrastructure, including media outlets, simply because they claim Hamas at some point, used that building. The bar is so low a dwarf wouldn't be able to limbo dance under it. They don't feel they even need the excuse of actively being attacked from there.

Providing a Zionist voice equals not engaging in the ethical debate. You can't, by definition, when your priority is not what is ethically correct, but giving voice to one side of the argument. It's disengenuous to pretend otherwise. I'm not providing a Palestininan voice here, for example, I'm trying to make an ethical argument. Period.

I am a Zionist and I was raised in a Zionist family and you don't get to tell me that my voice isn't valid. I don't think you understand Zionism. All it is is about affirming a Jewish homeland in Israel. It does not involve persecuting anyone.

Are you an Arab? What are you?

Your voice is valid, your arguments are not. And I don't believe I've made any judgements one way or the other on Zionism in this thread other than to state the obvious just now that it puts you on one side of the divide.

Are you an Arab? What are you? — BitconnectCarlos

:lol: