Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Danioover9000]

@Nivsch

6 hours ago, Nivsch said:

@Gennadiy1981 The prisoner is actually an actor I saw yesterday an evidence I looking for it again now.

Though it doesnt mean the treatment of non-terrorists Palestinians in Israel is out of problems because it most likely has.

   Proof he's just an actor paid for this?

[Raze]

 

Edited June 24 by Raze

[Gennadiy1981]

3 hours ago, Vrubel said:

I wondered because you said you were from the (ex) Soviet Union and grew up religious and you mentioned the Messiah a couple of times.  

Yes, they helped a lot in settling in my grandparents in Israel, making sure they got an apartment and a job. And it's nice knowing I can rely on them almost anywhere in the world if something gets wrong. When I was in Israel I donated some money to them. 

Oh I see, regarding Messiah, every religious and a lot of none religious people speak of the coming. Its something embedded and I guess a hope to some extent. Actually long time back i was in Jewish Defense League, thats where I learned a lot about Rabbi Meir Kahane, he was the one who actually was fighting for Soviet Jews to be out, even going to extreme measure. We were called the forgotten Jews and he was able to challenge the iron curtain so we can get the hell out of it. I will never forget his grace towards us and he is always in my heart. I actually used to make Yartzeit (commemoration fore the deceased) for him. We made one in New York and in Tapuach back in early two thousands.

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

   Proof he's just an actor paid for this?

Meanwhile the Hamas terrorists who are supposed to be torturing their hostages everyday seem to feed them well and barely touch them.

I saw footage of the 4 that were rescued.

Well fed, no bruises and seemed to be in overall good physical shape.

No trauma either.

Talk about who the real terrorists are.

And before you call the Palestinian prisoners as terrorists, I saw some of the Hamas hostages were IDF personnel that were actually captured while in duty. So they are not innocent either if you want to use that logic.

An IDF personnel is the Israeli version of a Hamas fighter.

 

Edited June 24 by Karmadhi

[Gennadiy1981]

2 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

When you  consider a finger nail more worthy than 2 million civilians then ofc the IDF will seem noxious ethical.

Most people have higher standards for what they consider ethical though.

I see your point, but I follow the ethics of the bible that says measure for measure. And by the way this ethics is followed in many developed countries. It says with righteous people you shall dealt righteously and with wicked people you shall dealt viciously. Of course if some say gurus come to Israel, and will ask for food and water, we would host them and provide shelter. But when you have terrorists, whose main objective is to cause harm to innocent people who did not do anything wrong to them and when we go and rescue our own, for sure and I stand corrected if we had to eliminate 270 or 270,000 for the same four individuals, we would not hesitate to do that. The moral is, do not start the fight. And the bible says, "When someone comes to kill you, kill them first" would you not agree with that?

[zazen]

Let’s not forget the hostage that is the US political system. 

 

[hundreth]

3 hours ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

I see your point, but I follow the ethics of the bible that says measure for measure. And by the way this ethics is followed in many developed countries. It says with righteous people you shall dealt righteously and with wicked people you shall dealt viciously. Of course if some say gurus come to Israel, and will ask for food and water, we would host them and provide shelter. But when you have terrorists, whose main objective is to cause harm to innocent people who did not do anything wrong to them and when we go and rescue our own, for sure and I stand corrected if we had to eliminate 270 or 270,000 for the same four individuals, we would not hesitate to do that. The moral is, do not start the fight. And the bible says, "When someone comes to kill you, kill them first" would you not agree with that?

I wouldn't agree that eye for an eye is the way to go here. In this way each side corrupts the other into losing their humanity. 

I generally agree with your big picture viewpoint that you do what you need to do to get the hostages back. That said, you don't kill civilians along the way for the hell of it. You set up a specific military operation with specific objectives while minimizing civilian casualties where possible. This is more or less what happened when they rescued the 4 hostages. They set up a covert operation, got the hostages, hit a snag during the operation where they needed cover, and unfortunately Palestinian civilians were a part of that.

Now, if you take hostages and put them in civilian quarters - you better damn expect hell if you're around those hostages. That is fair game. For all intents and purposes, those hostages are radioactive material. You are in grave danger when you take them, and grave danger when you host them.

And honestly, if Hamas or the Palestinians in general had objectives that were focused on rescuing / retrieving their prisoners - we would view them very differently. I think it would show a very different priority favoring life over death.

[Gennadiy1981]

@hundreth my Rabbi also did not like eye for an eye philosophy, he always used to say "Two eyes for an eye, teeth for a tooth".

But for sure, once you take hostages and you keep them among civilians its a fair game, basically you agree with me, just trying to deliver the message in a very nice manner, but its the same. Basically I just say it in the face. thats all, lol, plain and simple. I am sure there are poetic ways to do the same, I wont argue with that.

[hundreth]

12 minutes ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

@hundreth my Rabbi also did not like eye for an eye philosophy, he always used to say "Two eyes for an eye, teeth for a tooth".

But for sure, once you take hostages and you keep them among civilians its a fair game, basically you agree with me, just trying to deliver the message in a very nice manner, but its the same. Basically I just say it in the face. thats all, lol, plain and simple. I am sure there are poetic ways to do the same, I wont argue with that.

It's possible to have both agreements and disagreements over different things.

I think this idea of "you value your people over their people" as a bad thing is strange. Of course you value your own people over others, especially enemies. To think otherwise is absurd. 

The duty of governments and their militaries is to protect their citizens. 

You should value your own. If this was the perspective from both sides, this conflict would look very different. 

[Raze]

36 minutes ago, hundreth said:

I generally agree with your big picture viewpoint that you do what you need to do to get the hostages back. That said, you don't kill civilians along the way for the hell of it. You set up a specific military operation with specific objectives while minimizing civilian casualties where possible. This is more or less what happened when they rescued the 4 hostages. They set up a covert operation, got the hostages, hit a snag during the operation where they needed cover, and unfortunately Palestinian civilians were a part of that.

 

1) After 8 months of conflict they only rescued 7 hostages (killing at least 3), on the other hand a ceasefire returned over 100 back safely. The hostage families themselves already said they want a ceasefire and don’t believe military operations will return them safely, so the IDF is not prioritizing Hostage safety and you aren’t if you support them, at least according to the hostage families (and basic reasoning frankly).

2) What is your evidence they minimized civilian casualties exactly? They killed over 200, how is that “minimizing” them, they weren’t forming a wall around them.

If the focus is operations of getting the hostages back why have they killed between 15-30K civilians and only retrieved 7 hostages?

36 minutes ago, hundreth said:

 

And honestly, if Hamas or the Palestinians in general had objectives that were focused on rescuing / retrieving their prisoners - we would view them very differently. I think it would show a very different priority favoring life over death.

So what is your opinion on the IDF firing on its own civilians?

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/another-israeli-soldier-admits-to-implementing-the-hannibal-directive-on-october-7/

 

Edited June 24 by Raze

[hundreth]

18 minutes ago, Raze said:

1) After 8 months of conflict they only rescued 7 hostages (killing at least 3), on the other hand a ceasefire returned over 100 back safely. The hostage families themselves already said they want a ceasefire and don’t believe military operations will return them safely, so the IDF is not prioritizing Hostage safety and you aren’t if you support them, at least according to the hostage families (and basic reasoning frankly).

Yes and like many of us, we question why there has been only one such operation. 

As for a ceasefire, of course the families favor this. The government and IDF need to weigh different options. Of course Israel will approve a temporary ceasefire with hostages returned because this allows them to continue their other military objectives. That's the deal you just described.

There are two reasons a permanent ceasefire is not in Israel's best interest:

1.) A permanent ceasefire is a way to communicate to Hamas and the broader Islamic extremist world that this form of combat will be rewarded.

2.) Israel's broader military objective is to eliminate Hamas. That could mean multiple things, and we're all trying to parse that out and understand where the end is. I personally believe you need to destroy the tunnels and main Hamas military outposts. 

 

Quote

2) What is your evidence they minimized civilian casualties exactly? They killed over 200, how is that “minimizing” them, they weren’t forming a wall around them.

If the focus is operations of getting the hostages back why have they killed between 15-30K civilians and only retrieved 7 hostages?

So what is your opinion on the IDF firing on its own civilians?

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/another-israeli-soldier-admits-to-implementing-the-hannibal-directive-on-october-7/

For your first question, it's because of the events that transpired. They went in under disguise, got the hostages out, and the vehicle got stuck on the way out of the operation - which then required air support. When your mission's objective is to retrieve the hostages in a stealthy way and get out, that means the operation had the minimization of casualties in mind. It didn't work out that way, but that's what happens when you put hostages near civilians. You can blame Hamas for that. If you put hostages in civilian quarters, don't blame Israel when the shit hits the fan.

As for the Hannibal directive, this reeks more of conspiracy than any specific combat philosophy. You have these individual anecdotes, but when you look at the big picture all of October 7th - it was a giant mess with Israelis scrambling to get it under control. There were MANY errors that day. It's far more likely whichever soldier conducted friendly fire simply fucked up. It took the IDF hours to even begin responding to the situation. 

Your larger point about what Israel has done vs. achieving direct military goals such as getting hostages back is a valid one. This is where much of the criticism from within Israel stems.

[Danioover9000]

@Gennadiy1981

5 hours ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

I see your point, but I follow the ethics of the bible that says measure for measure. And by the way this ethics is followed in many developed countries. It says with righteous people you shall dealt righteously and with wicked people you shall dealt viciously. Of course if some say gurus come to Israel, and will ask for food and water, we would host them and provide shelter. But when you have terrorists, whose main objective is to cause harm to innocent people who did not do anything wrong to them and when we go and rescue our own, for sure and I stand corrected if we had to eliminate 270 or 270,000 for the same four individuals, we would not hesitate to do that. The moral is, do not start the fight. And the bible says, "When someone comes to kill you, kill them first" would you not agree with that?

   Ok, so when most hostages HAMMAs captures are well fed and taken care of, and most Palestinian civilians and hostages are tortured, is that equal measure to measure? Deaths in Oct 7 around 130 killed and some captured, but the IDF response is around 30,000 dead, most civilians, is that equal measure?

   Also, don't talk or cite anything from the Holy Bible here, when there's so much asymmetrical differences in 'equal' measurements.

Edited June 24 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@hundreth

14 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Yes and like many of us, we question why there has been only one such operation. 

As for a ceasefire, of course the families favor this. The government and IDF need to weigh different options. Of course Israel will approve a temporary ceasefire with hostages returned because this allows them to continue their other military objectives. That's the deal you just described.

There are two reasons a permanent ceasefire is not in Israel's best interest:

1.) A permanent ceasefire is a way to communicate to Hamas and the broader Islamic extremist world that this form of combat will be rewarded.

2.) Israel's broader military objective is to eliminate Hamas. That could mean multiple things, and we're all trying to parse that out and understand where the end is. I personally believe you need to destroy the tunnels and main Hamas military outposts. 

 

For your first question, it's because of the events that transpired. They went in under disguise, got the hostages out, and the vehicle got stuck on the way out of the operation - which then required air support. When your mission's objective is to retrieve the hostages in a stealthy way and get out, that means the operation had the minimization of casualties in mind. It didn't work out that way, but that's what happens when you put hostages near civilians. You can blame Hamas for that. If you put hostages in civilian quarters, don't blame Israel when the shit hits the fan.

As for the Hannibal directive, this reeks more of conspiracy than any specific combat philosophy. You have these individual anecdotes, but when you look at the big picture all of October 7th - it was a giant mess with Israelis scrambling to get it under control. There were MANY errors that day. It's far more likely whichever soldier conducted friendly fire simply fucked up. It took the IDF hours to even begin responding to the situation. 

Your larger point about what Israel has done vs. achieving direct military goals such as getting hostages back is a valid one. This is where much of the criticism from within Israel stems.

   If Israel's, or likud party's and Bibi's objective is the elimination of HAMMAs, and we're just parsing out what that means ATM, if it's more likely that violent full on invasion in all of Gaza and even West Bank is more probable and necessary, despite high number of civilian deaths, would they take that chance? And if they choose to go full invasion, what would you and rest of the world do? Just watch?

   So any ceasefire, temporary or permanent, communicates rewarded to the Islamists nearby? Are Islamists to you like a bunch of pet animals that only answer punishments and rewards?

[Danioover9000]

@nuwu

49 minutes ago, nuwu said:

 

   Nice share, albeit I have a mixed view on game theory and some systemic thinker takes on it and futurist takes:

 

 

 

 

[Danioover9000]

@nuwu

 

[Raze]

29 minutes ago, hundreth said:

There are two reasons a permanent ceasefire is not in Israel's best interest:

1.) A permanent ceasefire is a way to communicate to Hamas and the broader Islamic extremist world that this form of combat will be rewarded.

2.) Israel's broader military objective is to eliminate Hamas. That could mean multiple things, and we're all trying to parse that out and understand where the end is. I personally believe you need to destroy the tunnels and main Hamas military outposts. 

I just found out one of the rescued hostages confirmed Israeli air strikes killed 2 hostages, so they’ve killed at least 5.

1) do not claim israel and you prioritize life if you are arguing for the option which risks hostages lives over returning them, you are objectively prioritizing killing over their lives. A ceasefire would right away return them all, and if done earlier would have saved the ones killed, war operations has killed them and continues to risk their lives. If you support that for other reasons fine, but you do not value their lives above all else.

2) the IDF spokesperson already cast doubt on the idea of defeating Hamas, so if the war ends and Hamas isn’t defeated that will refute your point as Israel will have sacrificed hostages for nothing.

29 minutes ago, hundreth said:

It didn't work out that way, but that's what happens when you put hostages near civilians. You can blame Hamas for that. If you put hostages in civilian quarters, don't blame Israel when the shit hits the fan.

By that logic, is Israel to blame for Oct 7 because they left the border unguarded and civilians near Gaza?

No, and likewise Hamas is not to blame for this because Israel chose to strike civilians. If you launch a strike or attack, whatever the reasons are you are responsible for the result.

29 minutes ago, hundreth said:

As for the Hannibal directive, this reeks more of conspiracy than any specific combat philosophy.

No, it is a confirmed protocol 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
 

It isn’t just anecdotal accounts, both survivors and idf are reporting it and a UN investigation claims to find evidence for it. 
 

Quote

According to MondoWeiss, on 28 March 2024 IDF Captain Bar Zonshein gave an interview in which he recounted firing tank shells on vehicles on October 7, although he did not know if there were Israeli combatants alive or dead in them. Pressed on whether it was the right decision if there were Israeli soldiers killed as a result, he said "I decided that this is the right decision, that it's better to stop the abduction and that they not be taken," he told Israeli media outlets.

Again, if Israel values life why were they firing on their own civilians?

Edited June 24 by Raze

[hundreth]

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

I just found out one of the rescued hostages confirmed Israeli air strikes killed 2 hostages, so they’ve killed at least 5.

1) do not claim israel and you prioritize life if you are arguing for the option which risks hostages lives over returning them, you are objectively prioritizing killing over their lives. A ceasefire would right away return them all, and if done earlier would have saved the ones killed, war operations has killed them and continues to risk their lives. If you support that for other reasons fine, but you do not value their lives above all else.

This isn't so complicated. The IDF needs to weigh these specific hostages lives vs. their populace as a whole. Do you have a permanent ceasefire, reward Hamas and then encourage them to do another attack against your citizens? Of course you need to consider which ultimately saves more lives.

Quote

2) the IDF spokesperson already cast doubt on the idea of defeating Hamas, so if the war ends and Hamas isn’t defeated that will refute your point as Israel will have sacrificed hostages for nothing.

Like I said, I believe defeating Hamas means destroying the tunnels and their military outposts. Not the ideology and every single member. So by that criteria, if that doesn't happen I will agree with you. If the ideology of Hamas persists, I expect that. I would not consider that a failure but a given.
 

Quote

By that logic, is Israel to blame for Oct 7 because they left the border unguarded and civilians near Gaza?

You aren't making any sense here. We don't keep Palestinian prisoners or hostages in those areas. There was no valid military objective Hamas had except to kill and kidnap as many Jews as possible. If Israel put prisoners in civilian areas, of course that's stupid and their fault.

Also, Israel is to blame for not having enough security near the border - absolutely. 

Quote

No, and likewise Hamas is not to blame for this because Israel chose to strike civilians. If you launch a strike or attack, whatever the reasons are you are responsible for the result.

No, Israel didn't choose to strike civilians, they chose to provide air cover to their people so they could get out. One is a primary motive, and the other is secondary. That's a big difference and the international law you love to cite distinguishes as such. Motives matter.

Quote

No, it is a confirmed protocol 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive
 

It isn’t just anecdotal accounts, both survivors and idf are reporting it and a UN investigation claims to find evidence for it. 
 

Again, if Israel values life why were they firing on their own civilians?

I don't know that this is what happened on Oct 7th, purposely killing your own - and you don't either... but the Wikipedia page outlines the rationale. This is designed to discourage the taking of hostages because you risk your life in the process of taking them. In some ways it makes sense, but I personally don't agree it's the best approach and am glad they formally stopped it.

[Gennadiy1981]

@Raze as far as Israel killed another hostage that’s not an official info. Is it possible, of course it’s war, war is a terrible thing, it’s just sometimes it’s terribly necessary. 
 

You keep pointing out about Hamas and cease fire, I think you are over simplifying picture that it’s Hamas who wants and not Israel and it’s not necessarily true. First of all, when Hamas abducted people, you think they didn’t expect they would get this mess? Any self respecting country would have done the same or even worse, especially if they did that shit to USA, I would say Gaza would not even exist and would be totally under USA.

 

And second of all, do you think Hamas just abducted people and then easily would say ok let’s end this all? Are you serious? You think they practiced so long and just to end that easy? And besides the initial cease fire that was made back in December I believe but don’t quote me, it was precisely that to get hostages but Hamas asked for more than was agreed and the deal collapsed. You need to view the entire geopolitical situation. Of course we will want hostages back, that’s not even a question but the problem is if Netanyahu goes that route it will set a dangerous precedence for others to kidnap and then demand on their accorse. So you need to really think here wise. 
 

@Danioover9000 I see we started to communicate often here, I guess we are friends now. 🤪. To answer your question about feeding. First of all I watched the videos of hostages who were not fed well, but regardless, don’t abduct them and you don’t need to feed them at all. Listen I am sure you would not be happy to be abducted and feed bbq or caviar and stay in the cage in the meanwhile. 

[Raze]

39 minutes ago, hundreth said:

This isn't so complicated. The IDF needs to weigh these specific hostages lives vs. their populace as a whole. Do you have a permanent ceasefire, reward Hamas and then encourage them to do another attack against your citizens? Of course you need to consider which ultimately saves more lives.

- there is 0 indication continuing the war “saves more lives”, Hamas and other extremist groups recruit from orphans of Israeli attacks, they will have far more recruits after this. The current conflict is risking a larger war with Hezbollah as they are firing at Israel until there is a ceasefire, this has already killed israelis and a full scale war will kill far more. 

Prior to the war and if it ends Hamas is stuck inside Gaza and can only fire small rockets which get intercepted almost every single time. They only became a major threat because Israel left Gaza unguarded and they broke out.

- you aren’t considering what saves more lives, the war so far has killed or mutilated thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and hundreds in the West Bank. Those are lives as well.
 

39 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Like I said, I believe defeating Hamas means destroying the tunnels and their military outposts. Not the ideology and every single member. So by that criteria, if that doesn't happen I will agree with you. If the ideology of Hamas persists, I expect that. I would not consider that a failure but a given.

Then the ideology will spread and form a new potentially larger group which will commit similar or worse attacks on Israel, so the conflict would not have made Israel safer but rather less safe, similar to how their constant bombardments lead to the growth of Hamas 

39 minutes ago, hundreth said:

You aren't making any sense here. We don't keep Palestinian prisoners or hostages in those areas. There was no valid military objective Hamas had except to kill and kidnap as many Jews as possible. If Israel put prisoners in civilian areas, of course that's stupid and their fault.

The objective was to capture IDF and Israelis to trade for Palestinian prisoners. 
 

39 minutes ago, hundreth said:

No, Israel didn't choose to strike civilians, they chose to provide air cover to their people so they could get out. One is a primary motive, and the other is secondary. That's a big difference and the international law you love to cite distinguishes as such. Motives matter.

Israel chooses to order strikes that will kill civilians. See this information leaked to a israeli outlet from IDF:

Quote

“We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” A., an intelligence officer, told +972 and Local Call. “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.”

In addition, according to the sources, when it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],” said C., one of the intelligence officers. Another source said that they had personally authorized the bombing of “hundreds” of private homes of alleged junior operatives marked by Lavender, with many of these attacks killing civilians and entire families as “collateral damage.”

In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.

 

39 minutes ago, hundreth said:

 

I don't know that this is what happened on Oct 7th, purposely killing your own - and you don't either... but the Wikipedia page outlines the rationale. This is designed to discourage the taking of hostages because you risk your life in the process of taking them. In some ways it makes sense, but I personally don't agree it's the best approach and am glad they formally stopped it.

1) since we both don’t know, let’s look at what the victims of Oct 7 say themselves

Quote

The Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 reported on 16 December that IDF forces had shot at a tractor carrying hostages to Gaza, killing one hostage and injuring others.[66] According to Kibbutz Be'eri survivors Hadas Dagan and Yasmin Porat, an Israeli tank fired two shells at a house that was known to hold over a dozen hostages, including 12-year-old twins; only one hostage survived.[67][68][69] In January 2024,

2) yes the rational is that rather than value life they seek death for political gain, not so different from hamas

29 minutes ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

@Raze as far as Israel killed another hostage that’s not an official info. Is it possible, of course it’s war, war is a terrible thing, it’s just sometimes it’s terribly necessary. 

You keep pointing out about Hamas and cease fire, I think you are over simplifying picture that it’s Hamas who wants and not Israel and it’s not necessarily true. First of all, when Hamas abducted people, you think they didn’t expect they would get this mess? Any self respecting country would have done the same or even worse, especially if they did that shit to USA, I would say Gaza would not even exist and would be totally under USA.

And second of all, do you think Hamas just abducted people and then easily would say ok let’s end this all? Are you serious? You think they practiced so long and just to end that easy? And besides the initial cease fire that was made back in December I believe but don’t quote me, it was precisely that to get hostages but Hamas asked for more than was agreed and the deal collapsed. You need to view the entire geopolitical situation. Of course we will want hostages back, that’s not even a question but the problem is if Netanyahu goes that route it will set a dangerous precedence for others to kidnap and then demand on their accorse. So you need to really think here wise. 

1) the IDF already admitted it shot 3 hostages waving white flags

2) Hamas offered a ceasefire proposal, Israel rejected it, Israel offered a ceasefire proposal, Hamas accepted it, Israel rejected their own proposal 

3) Not exactly, for one most countries have not done what Israel did to Gaza such as blockading them and regularly bombing them. These are considered war crimes by many international courts.

Secondly Israel has already dropped more bombs in the small area of Gaza than dropped on London in all of ww2, and uses larger bombs and more unguided bombs than the USA does. 

4) Netanyahu already set the precedent by agreeing to trade hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for 1 captured IDF soldier, and later funding Hamas himself. Arguably it was done again during the temporary ceasefire.

Hamas did not ask for more, they are asking for an Israeli withdrawal, it makes no sense for them to agree to give the hostages back with no assurance Israel will stop attacking Gaza, they gain nothing otherwise.

We know what gets hostages back reliably. A ceasefire. If Israel doesn’t want it you are prioritizing something else over hostages lives, point blank. 

Edited June 24 by Raze

[Merkabah Star]

11 hours ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

the video with a guy on the car, the link you posted, this guy opened fire with IDF, so he was probably a terrorist, that’s fine. Also in Jerusalem post they were humane to actually place him on the vehicle to carry him to hospital but that dude was a terrorist, why else opening fire. See this kinda videos are a mislead.

If that guy was a terrorist he wouldn’t have been released to an ambulance after the incident, he would be locked up in prison with no trial and tortured for months. He was burnt from being put on the car like that, that was not some humane thing. 

You really are deluded. 

Any person the idf do anything to or kill is deemed a terrorist, as a way to save face and not be held accountable. Is it any wonder an atrocity like oct 7th happened?