[wat0n]

If so, why would they attack Israel in the first place @Pants-of-dog?

You have still not refuted the claim that Hamas attacked Israel because it wanted to stop protests against its rule and derail Saudi-Israeli peacemaking.

[Pants-of-dog]

The refutation to the claim has been posted twice now.

The fact that it has been ignored twice does not mean it has not been provided. It means it has not been challenged.

The fact that Israel and SA can make deals shows that Israel has no problem having amicable relationships with militant despotic Muslim regimes. So, even if we accept that Hamas is militant and despotic, Israel should have no trouble having a good relationship with them.

So the character of Hamas is not the problem.

The problem is the ongoing oppression from the Israeli government.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog no, you did not refute anything.

You are contradicting yourself.

And you still have not refuted the claim that Hamas saw its rule under an existential threat, as evidenced by the protests it faced in July-August 2023, and that's why it attacked Israel on October 7.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since the refutation has been ignored at least three times, we can move on from this unsupported and illogical claim.

The claim that October 7 was caused by oppression by the Israeli government and the IDF still stands.

At this rate, the Israeli government and the IDF are ensuring thousands more October 7 attacks.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog your "refutation" has not been ignored, it's just that you did not refute anything.

You did not explain why did Hamas repress the protests of July-August 2023 or why did Gazans protest against its rule

You did not refute that Hamas does not want the Saudi-Israeli agreement

You did not refute Hamas regards both of these as a long-term existential threat

Instead, you claimed it would be suicidal for Hamas to launch an attack like that of October 7, implying Hamas is not suicidal... Which then does not explain why it committed such a massacre to begin with. Hamas regarding itself as facing a certain existential threat if it did nothing would explain why it decided to take such a risk.

Now you're upset that your contradictions are exposed bare, and so you ignore my refutation to your pro-massacre narrative.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one has provided any evidence that the war and the protests are related.

It is not my job to prove they are not related. If that were the case, Zionists could just keep coming up with more and more excuses and they would all be true unless their critics proved otherwise, no matter how unverifiable. It is a ridiculous standard of debate.

I have shown that it requires the assumption that Hamas leaders would rather risk death than lose power, which is an illogical assertion.

So we return to the original assertion: Hamas chose to attack because of the oppression visited upon Palestinians by the Israeli government and the IDF; said oppression being a direct and clear existential threat.

[wat0n]

It is also not my job to prove your own narrative, @Pants-of-dog

Now refute the idea that Hamas attacked Israel because it was facing internal opposition in Gaza in the form of mass protests against its rule, and because of the Saudi-Israeli peace process.

Also, note that your own narrative still has the internal contradiction that Hamas' leadership would rather risk death for attacking Israel to achieve some unspecified goals.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think @wat0n does not understand my argument, nor the fact that his claim about internal protests has been refuted three times.

Let us imagine the leadership of Hamas sitting around deciding whether or not to attack on October 7. It is reasonable to assume that they are smart enough to know that the Israeli government and the IDF would respond with overwhelming lethal force and that a significant portion of the people at that meeting would be killed.

Consequently, any explanation for the October 7 attack must be motivated by some sort of benefit worth risking one’s life for.

Historically, we see that one of the few reasons for groups to act in this manner is to remove the yoke of oppression.

There are no precedents for parties to act like this merely to avoid losing power. If that were the motivation. then it would make more sense to argue that this was a false flag operation by the Israeli government and the IDF, which is openly ridiculous, so the claim that Hamas would do so is even more so.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog there are no precedents for parties to start wars they can't win to avoid losing power, underestimating the intensity and extent of the response?

Ever heard of the Falklands' War?



Also, if Hamas was against oppression, why did repress the protests against its rule in Gaza on July-August 2023?

[Pants-of-dog]

The Malvinas war is not comparable.

The Argentine government never had to consider the possibility of being killed by the UK, or having Argentines genocided.

[wat0n]

Actually it did have to consider the possibility of the UK attacking the mainland if it did not surrender after losing the Falklands.

And it was then overthrown.

[Pants-of-dog]

If Argentina surrendered after losing the Malvinas, then the Argentine government chose to protect themselves over distracting the local populace.

This then supports the claim that governments do not invite existential threats merely to distract the populace.

[wat0n]

Or maybe the Junta didn't make human shielding a key part of its military strategy like Hamas did. After all, even today you have Hamas' political leader in Gaza (now the leader of Hamas as a whole) Yahya Sinwar holed up in a tunnel.

Furthermore, the Argentinian soldiers did not believe they'd go to heaven after being killed by the British. This means they're more likely to rebel against the Junta than just accept being destroyed.

What certainly does not make sense is the belief Hamas would opt for a military attack that could end in its destruction without having a clear political goal, and also that Hamas is somehow concerned about the oppression of Gazans while shooting at protesters just a couple of months before launching the attack.

[Deutschmania]

This whole issue of Gaza , and Hamas , was the end product of Israel's policy of divide and conquer . And ever since has been used as an excuse to suppress domestic dissent . The only thing that has resulted from such a belligerent neo-Zionism has been the increased infringement of human rights , involving not only Palestinians , and even Israelis , but also even against Americans who dare to speak out against our own government's complicity in Israel's genocide and apartheid of Palestinians . And I for one denounce the Blood and Soil doctrine that is characteristic of such Jewish fascism as seen in the Nation State Law .

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/hamas-israels-own-creation/ , https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history , https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/11/1/23941810/israel-crackdown-dissent-war-critics

[wat0n]

Division and dysfunction have been a feature of the Palestinian National Movement since the very beginning, @Deutschmania. And yes, it would sometimes lead to open civil war between each faction.

This predates Israel's establishment.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since the IDF consistently shoots or bombs the human shields without remorse or consequences, we can safely say that the Hamas tactic of human shields (if it even exists) is as effective as the IDF strategy of detaining the tunnel network by bombing hospitals, schools, homes, and food production facilities. In other words, neither is effective at all.

[Potemkin]

Actually it did have to consider the possibility of the UK attacking the mainland if it did not surrender after losing the Falklands.

And it was then overthrown.

There was never a possibility of the British expeditionary force attacking the Argentinian mainland after retaking the Malvinas/Falklands. It was a miracle we managed to retake the islands at all. In retrospect, it all seems inevitable, but it was actually a huge gamble. We keep dropping our toast, and it keeps landing jammy side up. Lol.

[wat0n]

Since the IDF consistently shoots or bombs the human shields without remorse or consequences, we can safely say that the Hamas tactic of human shields (if it even exists) is as effective as the IDF strategy of detaining the tunnel network by bombing hospitals, schools, homes, and food production facilities. In other words, neither is effective at all.

I'd say Israel's bombing of Hamas' infrastructure has been effective.

You can tell by the fact that rocket launches have been decreasing since the war began, again, even after Haniyeh was killed there was no discernible response from Hamas (by launching rockets into Israel) as far as I'm aware.

Of course, ultimately there must be boots on the ground to replace Hamas. For that to happen, either Israel does it directly (with the death toll this would bring, particularly of Israeli soldiers) or commits to two states and allows some international peacekeeping force to do that. This is why one can perfectly say that Netanyahu doesn't want to win this war: This is the logical endgame if the goal is to defeat Hamas and topple its government from Gaza.

And yet, this war was a necessary condition to even think about it. Whether Netanyahu will pick either... I doubt so, I think he just wants to extend the war for as long as possible to avoid an election. And if it was politically expedient (it may as well be to him, at least better than sending soldiers to become target practice or committing to two states), he'd be willing to let Hamas remain in Gaza.

There was never a possibility of the British expeditionary force attacking the Argentinian mainland after retaking the Malvinas/Falklands. It was a miracle we managed to retake the islands at all. In retrospect, it all seems inevitable, but it was actually a huge gamble. We keep dropping our toast, and it keeps landing jammy side up. Lol.

Not a land invasion, but I doubt Argentina would have been able to stop an aerial campaign.

[Potemkin]

Not a land invasion, but I doubt Argentina would have been able to stop an aerial campaign.

An aerial campaign? To achieve what? All we had to do was wait. The Junta fell within weeks anyway.

Besides, how many bombers do you think we had in the expeditionary force? What would have been the point of flying over Argentinian airspace with a few fighter jets? Hey, maybe they could have drawn a giant Union Jack in the sky with coloured vapour trails, just as a big “Fuck You!” A missed opportunity!

[wat0n]

An aerial campaign? To achieve what? All we had to do was wait. The Junta fell within weeks anyway.

Besides, how many bombers do you think we had in the expeditionary force? What would have been the point of flying over Argentinian airspace with a few fighter jets? Hey, maybe they could have drawn a giant Union Jack in the sky with coloured vapour trails, just as a big “Fuck You!” A missed opportunity!

What if the Junta had just refused to surrender? That's the scenario I'm putting myself into.

Certainly, it was unnecessary to do more once the Junta accepted its defeat.