An Israeli military spokesperson confirmed that there were “hostage situations” in the southern city of Ofakim and the nearby kibbutz of Beeri.
Hamas said it had taken “dozens” of Israeli soldiers hostage and moved them to the Gaza Strip as footage emerged appearing to show gunmen in military fatigues leading a group of mostly barefoot women down a street in Israel.
The announcement and video verified by NBC News came hours after Hamas launched a deadly land, air and sea attack and fired a huge barrage of rockets at Israel.
Removed by mod
Look at Israel’s borders when it was formed and look at them now, and then ask yourself why there’s such a difference
Removed by mod
Everyone should be allowed a homeland, but not everyone should be allowed an apartheid state where they’re allowed to oppress others.
Removed by mod
Correction: Terrorist activity, predictably spiked after the blockade in 2007. I mean, turning countries into open-air concentration camps has that effect.
What? How does oppressing civilians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem help combat terror? How does settlement in the West Bank help combat terror?
Also check the official definition of Apartheid. Do you need me to tell you how Israel fits the definition?
There’s nothing necessary about the oppression of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. The terror attacks you’re talking about are the result of the oppression; don’t mix your cause and effect.
The main oppressors of Gaza are Hamas. The main reason for their living conditions is because building materials are taken from the Palestinian citizens to be instead used for tunnels into Israel to kill more Jews. The reason for the blockade is because Iran sends Hamas weapons by sea otherwise. Hell, even with the blockade they still try to do so.
Of course all of these facts are comfortably ignored because “Israel bad”.
The terror came after, not before, the blockade. Just saying. And a blockade is already an act of war, so Hamas fighting is to be expected.
Removed by mod
1907? The conflict was definitely ongoing then, but that’s a strange definition of terror.
Do I really have to say “terror by Hamas-controlled Gaza” when I’m already talking about Hamas-controlled Gaza? Also, calling the second intifada terror is extremely ignorant and ignores the actual reasons it happened.
Removed by mod
That’s a metaphor, ever heard of it? Israel doesn’t allow dual-use materials. The thing is: A lot of life’s necessities are dual use. See:
The blockade caused the terror. Like literally the rocket attacks started with the blockade; you can look at the timeline. Also I like how you now narrowed your definition to the blockade, because you can’t justify anything happening to Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
You need to learn more about East Jerusalem. I’ll start: East Jerusalem Palestinians are systematically and routinely evicted from their homes to make way for Jewish settlements. It’s much harder for Palestinians to gain construction permits than it is for Jews. Palestinian peaceful protests are repeatedly suppressed violently. It’s almost impossible for a Palestinian in East Jerusalem to get Israeli citizenship (not that many want it, but the ones who do can’t), meaning that they live under a regime they can’t politically participate in. Should I go on? For more information, look up “Palestinian boy shoot in face by Israeli police”. There’s more than one story.
Note how I didn’t even touch on the West Bank; that’s a whole different beast.
You mean anti-Jewish sentiment began to rise when the “let’s take Arabs’ lands for ourselves” movement began to gain steam? Say it ain’t so. Also give me an example of that terrorization.
Removed by mod
Sigh it’s obvious that the second infifada doesn’t count here. Do I need to state “rocket fire by Hamas-controlled Gaza” when we’re obviously talking about Hamas-controlled Gaza?
How is the British mandate the late 1800s?
The security basis for… Shutting down peaceful protest, evicting Palestinians from their homes, not letting them participate
There was no way Israel was going to turn out as anything other than what it is now. A land ruled by nationalist Jews was inevitably going to oppress the Muslims in it, and it did.
absolute nazi take.
I thoroughly encourage anyone on the fence about the situation to read the article you linked because it is a fantastic example of how weak Israel’s argument that they’re not an apartheid state is. It’s nothing but whataboutism and tokenism.
Just to clarify, you understand they’re all semites and they’re all from that particular region?
Like, it isn’t Israelite land any more than its Palestinian land and at a certain point, these claims of “it was ours first” just continue the cycle of violence, oppression and war crimes.
They are all both perpetrators and victims.
Yeah, but his belief that it’s his homeland is more valid than their belief it’s their homeland because a bunch of weirdo evangelical Christians who pull the strings of the largest military in the world think Jews need to be in Israel for the end times to commence.
Removed by mod
Religious homelands are not homelands.
Removed by mod
You know what, you’re right. My family fled Lithuania when the Soviets took over, so I’m on the next flight to Vilnius and I’m going to move into the first house I find owned by an ethnic Russian.
Removed by mod
Oh trust me, some of the things Jews did for that land were not lawful. See Benny Morris’s 4-stage analysis of the Palestinian diaspora.
Yes, ethnic homelands are homelands because their ancestors have been living there. Being a member of the same religion does not entitle you or your people to land any more than shouting an incantation.
Removed by mod
Nope, your ancestors didnt live in Israel. People who were the same religious as you did. The jewish presence expanded rapidly in various waves, but was not as consistent as you’re making it out to be. It is not your ethnic homeland.
Removed by mod
Sorry 🫡 go fuck yourself as well
deleted by creator
Sadly, what all must do is talk to one another, respect one another, and work out a solution. Neither the Nyet and Yahoo brigade nor the clueless attack and hide while innocents are punished for your actions squad are working upon a solution. Likely they are the impediment which must go away first.
Hamas can’t disappear until Israel’s stance changes. Remember: Hamas came to power because Israel wasn’t willing to advance a peaceful solution.
And their actions make that harder to accomplish just as the actions taken by Israel can’t disappear until the Palestinians’ stance changes. It is a circle.
No no. Hamas’s philosophy, and what won them the 2006 elections (they had never won before that), was the idea that peace was clearly not working. For example, what got Israel to pull out of Gaza was not the Oslo peace process, but the second Intifada after the peace process had failed. That’s what I’m talking about. It’s not like Palestinians are fighting because they want to; it’s that Israel is creating a situation where there’s no way but to fight or accept your fate as the oppressed. Usually the oppressor needs to stop their oppression before the oppressed stop fighting back.
Now I’m not saying if Israel gave Palestinians their demands terror attacks would stop completely, but a population living in peace greatly reduces terrorist organizations’ recruitment pool. See: The IRA during the troubles vs now. There’s just no world where Hamas can maintain power without a belligerent Israel…
Your first paragraph is utterly irrelevant to the discussion as this isn’t about reasons for grievance. That said, you are mostly wrong about the cause and effect involved.
The IRA then VS now was also via Peace Process being a two way street and not one side doing something. You should study what happened to see that it was in fact both sides realizing the only way forward. Unlike you myopic “It is up to the greater power to stop fighting first!”, both sides had to. And while your supposition that Hamas relies upon the oppression for their continued existence, they would cause the process to fail by an attack, much as the current one. And the only result is those that are also reliant upon the conflict for power in Israel are using the attack to increase support for more oppression.
In this case what’s happening is that neither side is pursuing that way, so nothing gets done. It’s up to Israel to provide an avenue for a sensible peace if they want Palestinians to take it. Remember: Palestinians tried that path (see: The Oslo accords) but their philosophies on the matter are just different. Palestinians view the peace process as a way to take back part of what’s theirs, while Israel is just giving them the bare minimum so they stop terror attacks. Until one of these changes (preferably Israel’s) there’ll never be peace.
For example this was part of the Israeli peace offer in the Camp David summit in 2000:
I mean would any self-respecting state really approve these demands?
“neither side” was is the only part of your post that was relevant to anything but grievance seeking.
Removed by mod
Give Gaza autonomy in exchange for disbanding Hamas and turning in their leaders. Have a third party both sides trust provide security guarantees to Palestine so they can trust the bargin will hold
Not do things that put people who want them did into power. There’s a reason Palestinians flocked behind Hamas and that was because peaceful solutions were not working.
Are you sure? Maybe the Palestinian people should vote on that. Oh wait they can’t, Hamas won’t allow a vote. Instead they threaten “their own” citizens to make sure they’re more afraid of them than of Israel.
Of course, Hamas also can’t exist without Israel, otherwise who would they have to murder “from the Jordan River to the sea” as stated in their charter.
Yes, without the oppressor the oppressed wouldn’t have rallied behind a group who want to violently expel the oppressors. That’s part of the anti-zionist argument.