if only there was some kind of app that could help me quickly respond. hmmmmmm

1. The Rape Allegation – Shifting the Goalposts - "There is no evidence for rape." - You claim there is "no evidence," yet multiple reports, including medical findings, suggest otherwise. Instead of dismissing it outright, a rational response would be to demand an impartial investigation. You wouldn’t accept "no evidence" as a defense if the accusation were against Hamas, yet when it’s the IDF, you suddenly require a perfect chain of evidence. That’s selective skepticism. Also, your own words contradict your stance: First, you say there’s no verified evidence. Then, you shift to questioning the identity of the perpetrator. Finally, you argue about what constitutes rape. If there’s truly "no evidence," why engage in deflection? The real issue here is not whether the act happened, but whether you’re willing to hold all parties equally accountable.

2. Targeting Civilians – The Double Standard - "We are not targeting any women and children. The IDF do not target women and children." If Israel does not target civilians, why do its actions systematically result in such a high civilian death toll? Civilians make up the overwhelming majority of casualties. Saying Hamas "hides behind civilians" doesn’t erase the fact that Israel chooses to bomb those areas anyway. If your concern is truly avoiding harm, then why does Israel continue airstrikes knowing the consequences? Moreover, your argument implies that Hamas forces Israel’s hand. But Israel controls the level of response—it is a nuclear-armed military power, not a reactionary victim. Also, by your own logic: If Hamas firing from populated areas = Hamas is responsible for civilian deaths, then…Israel bombing populated areas = Israel is responsible for those deaths. You can’t have it both ways.

3. The Siege – Collective Punishment, No Matter What You Call It - "I would prevent food and water until the kidnapped are back home. My people before theirs. This is not a punishment…" How is deliberately cutting off food and water to an entire population "not a punishment"? You can dress it up as "pressure," but when innocent civilians—including those who had nothing to do with Hamas—are deprived of life-sustaining resources, it meets the definition of collective punishment under international law. Also, let’s follow your logic. If cutting off food and water is not punishment, then why do it? If it is punishment, then it contradicts your claim that Israel doesn’t target civilians. Either way, your position is inconsistent.

4. Palestine’s Existence – Historical Evasions "Occupied from who?????" - "Israel never occupied Palestine because Palestine was never a sovereign state." "Occupied from Jordan after they attacked, not from the people who never existed." Denying Palestinian existence is not a historical argument—it’s a rhetorical evasion. The world recognizes a Palestinian people. Denying their identity does nothing but sidestep the reality that Israel administers millions of people under military rule without rights. And your "Jordan" argument is misleading: Israel didn’t just take land from Jordan—it took land inhabited by Palestinians.
Whether Palestine was a "sovereign state" or not is irrelevant—people were there, and their land was taken. Using your own logic, if Israel’s right to the land is based on conquest (e.g., "Jordan attacked and we took it"), then Palestinians have the same right to resist occupation. You can’t claim conquest as justification while denying it as a reason for Palestinian resistance.

5. Gaza Withdrawal – A Misleading Half-Truth - "We left Gaza in 2005." Yes, Israel withdrew settlers from Gaza, but: Israel still controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastline. Israel still controls what enters and leaves Gaza (including food, medicine, and electricity). Israel has repeatedly bombed Gaza and imposed blockades even after withdrawal. So, "leaving Gaza" doesn’t mean "ending control over it." This is like saying you "left the house" while still locking the doors from the outside and controlling the thermostat (and regularly intruding lets not forget).

6. Golan Heights & Expansion – Justifying Aggression - "As for the Golan Heights—Syria should have considered the consequences." By this logic, should Israel have "considered the consequences" of occupying Palestinian land? You’re justifying territorial expansion through force, while denying Palestinians the same right to resist. Again, you can’t have it both ways. "We didn’t expand to Judea and Samaria; we took it from Jordan after they attacked." So, you’re admitting Israel took land. And yet, you insist that the people living there never existed. How can you "take" something from a place that, according to you, wasn’t occupied by anyone?

7. "Deflecting Again" – A Convenient Escape - "Deflecting again." This is a common tactic: Instead of engaging with counterpoints, you label them "deflections" and move on. If facts are on your side, you should be able to address counterarguments directly—not dismiss them without response. Similarly: "Stating facts is not deflection unless the other side can’t handle the facts." If you truly believe this, then engage in all the facts—not just the ones that support your argument. Conclusion – Your Own Words Expose the Contradictions.

You claim Palestinians don’t exist while simultaneously justifying taking their land.
You argue Israel doesn’t target civilians while supporting food and water deprivation.
You say "Israel left Gaza," while still controlling its essential resources.
You claim "Hamas is responsible for civilian deaths," but refuse to apply the same logic to Israel’s airstrikes.

Your words don’t just expose bias—they expose the contradictions in your reasoning. If you stand by everything you say, then at least be consistent. If not, then maybe it’s not "the other side" that’s struggling with the facts.

This thread has thousands of comments, most of them obsessively dissecting every Israeli action — airstrikes, aid policy, borders, settlements.
But how many of you condemned Hamas for October 7?
How many called out:
Hostage-taking? Mass rape? Execution of civilians? Using kids as human shields? Hiding behind hospitals?

Answer: Virtually none.
You call Israeli self-defense “genocide” but ignore literal terrorism. That silence? That selective outrage?

That’s what turning a blind eye looks like.
And you’ve done it post after post after post.

Nice try but your whole argument collapses under its own double standards.
You claim I’m “shifting goalposts,” but all I’ve done is apply one consistent standard:
If you’re going to accuse someone of rape bring verified, credible evidence, not anonymous reports and third-hand rumors.
That’s not deflection that’s called not condemning people without proof.
The report you cling to doesn’t confirm rape. It mentions a medical concern and conflicting accounts, including the doctor saying he was pressured to blame prisoners not naming any soldier, not presenting a perpetrator, not proving intent.
If the roles were reversed, and Hamas was accused without hard evidence, you’d be the first to scream “propaganda” or “Zionist lies.”
So your lecture about “equal standards” is pure projection.
You’re not calling for accountability you’re calling for blame without proof.
I did say I support investigation and consequences if proven guilty what I refuse to do is pretend speculation equals guilt just to feed your narrative.

So no I’m not shifting anything.
You’re the one shifting from accusation to assumption to outrage because you don’t have the facts.




Intent matters. If Israel were targeting civilians, Gaza would be a parking lot in 48 hours.
Civilian casualties are a tragic consequence of war, not the goal. That’s a huge difference legally, morally, and militarily.
Hamas deliberately fires from civilian areas, stores weapons in schools and hospitals, and blocks evacuations. That’s not an excuse it’s a war crime.
And yes, when a terrorist hides behind civilians, he, not the one defending against him, is responsible for what happens next. That’s international law — not “my logic.”
Israel has the most advanced warning system in military history:
Leaflets, Phone calls, Roof-knocking, Evacuation corridors (which Hamas blocks)

Saying “don’t bomb because Hamas is near civilians” is exactly what Hamas wants: a human shield that makes them untouchable.
You’re rewarding that tactic — which guarantees more dead civilians, not fewer.

“Israel is a nuclear power, not a reactionary victim”? That’s a cheap slogan.
Power doesn’t negate the right to self-defense.
The size of the army doesn’t mean Israel should absorb rocket fire or ignore a massacre.

If you actually cared about minimizing civilian deaths, you’d condemn Hamas for operating from those areas not attack the only military in the region trying to stop them while still warning civilians.

You want to talk about having it both ways?
You’re defending a group that murders civilians intentionally, while condemning the one trying to avoid it.
That’s not justice. That’s moral blindness.




you’re conflating pressure with punishment, and lawful wartime tactics with emotional appeals.
Cutting off resources to apply pressure on a hostile entity is not the same as punishment.
Punishment is retaliatory. Pressure is conditional: release the hostages, the aid resumes. That’s leverage not cruelty.
Israel has a legal and moral obligation to protect its citizens especially when over 50 hostages are still held by a terror group that has already committed mass murder and rape.
Gaza is not a civilian island, it’s controlled by Hamas, a designated terrorist organization recognized by the U.S., EU, UK, and others.
They control food, water, fuel, and aid distribution. They steal it. They hoard it. They use it to feed their fighters while civilians starve.

Your argument ignores the reality: Israel lets aid in Hamas blocks it, loots it, or embeds rockets in it.
You’re blaming the lock while ignoring the kidnapper holding the key.

As for “targeting civilians” withholding supplies to pressure a government or terror regime is not the same as targeting civilians with violence. And you know it.

So no my stance isn’t inconsistent.
It’s consistent with every government’s responsibility: protect its people first, use pressure to secure hostages, and hold the enemy accountable for endangering civilians by design.

Your logic only works if you erase Hamas from the equation.
And maybe that’s your real inconsistency.




Let’s separate your emotional narrative from historical reality — because one doesn’t cancel out the other.

No one denied the existence of Palestinian people as individuals.
What I said and stand by is that there has never been a sovereign Palestinian state. No flag, no borders, no government, no currency, no historical precedent no collective.
That’s not evasion - it’s fact.
You said Israel “took Palestinian land.” No Israel took disputed territory from Jordan, which illegally occupied Judea and Samaria from 1948–1967.
Even the Arab world never recognized Jordan’s annexation, and no Palestinian state existed during that time.
Where was your “resistance” then?
You say “whether it was sovereign or not is irrelevant.” That’s convenient until you apply the exact opposite standard to Israel.
Israel’s claim is rooted in millennia of Jewish presence, legal mandates (San Remo, Balfour, UN Partition), and survival after multiple wars waged against it.
Your logic collapses when you equate conquest for survival (Israel defending itself from invading armies) with terrorist attacks on civilians as “resistance.”
One is defense. The other is bloodshed for ideology.

And let’s be clear: resistance isn’t a blank check for barbarism.
You don’t get to massacre civilians, take hostages, or teach kids to glorify martyrdom and then cry about “military rule.”
Especially when Palestinian leadership rejected statehood multiple times — 1937, 1947, 2000, 2008, and more.

So no your version of “resistance” is built on decades of rejection, destruction, and glorified victimhood, not justice or statehood.

If you want to talk about rights, start by asking why Palestinians have been ruled by terror groups and corrupt elites who profit off permanent conflict.

Until then, you’re not defending a people you’re defending a political fantasy built on selective outrage and historical amnesia.



Yes, Israel left the house in 2005 dismantled every settlement, pulled out every soldier, and handed over full internal control of Gaza.
But Hamas then set the house on fire, dragged the owners into the basement as hostages, and started launching rockets from the windows.

So yes if someone moves out, and the new tenant starts firing rockets and smuggling weapons, they’re going to watch the door, control what enters, and make sure explosives aren’t coming through the plumbing.

That’s not “controlling the thermostat.” That’s called basic self-defense.

Gaza shares a border with Egypt, which also enforces a blockade.
Gaza could’ve become Singapore instead, Hamas turned it into a launchpad for terror.

So don’t pretend Israel is “occupying” Gaza when Hamas runs it, rules it, arms it, and ruins it.

If you want Gaza free tell Hamas to disarm, return the hostages, and stop attacking civilians.
Until then, Israel’s not controlling Gaza it’s containing a threat.



Syria used the Golan to bomb Israeli farms and civilians for 19 years before 1967.
When Syria attacked again and lost the high ground, Israel took it in a defensive war.
That’s not “aggression.” That’s called consequence and no country on Earth would hand it back to a hostile regime with Iranian proxies parked on the other side.

As for Judea and Samaria Yes, Israel took the territory from Jordan, not from a Palestinian state (which never existed).
Jordan illegally annexed it in 1950. The Arab world didn’t even recognize it. The land was disputed, not sovereign (I’ve stated this historical fact multiple times already)
And don’t twist my words I never said “people didn’t exist.” I said there was no sovereign state called Palestine.
There were Arabs living there just like Jews under changing regimes: Ottoman, British, Jordanian.
You say I “justify force” but deny Palestinians the right to resist. Wrong again.
Israel used force to defend itself from armed, invading states.
Hamas uses force to massacre civilians and take hostages.
There’s a moral canyon between the two.

If you want to play the “you took land” game, then you need to apply that logic to every modern state formed by war including your own.
But funny how that standard only ever applies to one country.

So no I’m not having it both ways. I’m having it accurately.
You’re the one dancing between half-history and hollow slogans, hoping no one notices your narrative collapses under basic facts.




You say I’m “deflecting” but what I’m really doing is refusing to play by your dishonest framework, where context is erased, motives are flattened, and facts are cherry-picked to fit your narrative.

Let’s go point by point:

1. “You claim Palestinians don’t exist while taking their land”

Wrong. I said there was no sovereign Palestinian nation or collective identity prior to the mid-20th century that’s an historical fact, not erasure of human existence.
You can’t be “occupied” from a state that never existed. That’s not contradiction it’s context.

2. “You support food/water deprivation = targeting civilians”

Also false. Targeting civilians is intentional harm.
Withholding aid to pressure a terror regime holding 50+ hostages is called leverage, not targeting.
Meanwhile, Hamas steals and hoards aid, even during ceasefires you conveniently leave that out.

3. “Israel left Gaza but controls its resources”

Israel left Gaza in 2005 — unilaterally.
The only reason it monitors borders is because Hamas turned Gaza into a terror base.
And you ignore the fact that Egypt controls another border, and they enforce a blockade too.
If Gaza wants open borders, maybe start by not launching rockets and digging terror tunnels.

4. “You blame Hamas for civilian deaths but not Israel’s airstrikes”

Because intent and tactics matter - Hamas fires from schools and hospitals while Israel warns civilians before striking.
One side uses civilians to protect its weapons. The other uses weapons to protect its civilians.
That’s not moral equivalency it’s moral clarity.

You’re not exposing contradictions you’re exposing how deeply you have to twist logic to create one.
I’m not the one struggling with facts I’m the one forcing you to confront them.

So don’t confuse clear thinking with deflection.
I see through your narrative. And I’m not playing by it.

This post was edited by Many_Names on Apr 2 2025 03:48pm

Did you just seriously say that no other military does more to avoid civilian harm? Yall just dropped more tonnage of ordinance on gaza, than in Dresden, Hamburg, and London COMBINED, IN WW2.

Yall have been dropping unguided mk82s via AI targeting software (thanks to the american taxpayer) like its going out of style. Gaza is the size of Manhattan, so its easy to brush away these claims by saying "hamas fires rockets using human shields". The entirety of gaza is a human shield, my friend.

Hamas has been only using aks and rpgs since this special tunnel operation began. I can think of like two times they fired donkey-kong rockets that hit nothing in Israel. 86%of gaza in under evacuation orders and 80%of ALL buildings are destroyed in the north. The woman/child to combatant casualty ratio is simply appalling. And the fucking tiktok videos yall made when destroying peoples homes was also disgusting.

Your mantra of "most moral armry in the world" is no longer acceptable in the west.

That being said, im hyped to see yall drag the Americans into another sandbox war against iran.

Wow this discussion is becoming really lengthy...

Let's not kid ourselves... We all know what Israel wants! Get rid of Palestinians and occupy more land XD Its not a secret. Anything else is simply secondary. They are literally grabbing land left and right hahaha

It really isnt rocket science but for some it may feel like it XD

nvm

This post was edited by FantasyWorldII on Apr 2 2025 10:29pm

No, what Israel wants is not to be murdered. What Israel wants is to not wake up to babies shot in cribs, women raped, and civilians burned alive. What Israel wants is for its citizens Jewish, Arab, Christian, Druze to live without rocket sirens, terror tunnels, and genocidal chants calling for its annihilation.

You laugh about “land grabs” while Hamas literally launched a war from inside civilian homes, then cried victim when Israel hit back. Judea and Samaria? That’s ancestral Jewish land. Gaza? Israel withdrew from it in 2005, dismantled every settlement, handed it over and in return got 18 years of rockets and terror. So spare me the “occupation” mythology.

You act like this is some secret evil plan, like you uncovered a hidden agenda. No. The actual agenda is public: Hamas wants Israel wiped off the map. That’s in their charter. Their leaders say it on camera. Israel builds, Hamas destroys. Israel warns civilians, Hamas hides behind them. Israel wants peace, Hamas wants martyrs.

It’s not rocket science but clearly, some people still don’t get it. Or worse, they do, and just don’t care.

This post was edited by Many_Names on Apr 2 2025 11:02pm

I read only until here because I would like you to give me source of beheaded babies. I thought that was BS. So let me know please

Once you did, I can read further. Facts are facts and I am only interested in facts. Not your feelings

This post was edited by FantasyWorldII on Apr 2 2025 10:46pm

Yup, if they would just come out and say it, we'd all walk away with "To each their own"
But people like are just repeating the the same hysterical lies over and over again.
Like this one here.
We've hashed over at least a dozen times with verifiable proof to him that none of this happened.
But none of that matters for sake of lazy arguments, if he thought it would gain any sympathy for his argument he would probably tell you that he is a Holocaust survivor.
It's that old strategy of repeat a lie enough and it becomes a truth.
I personally cannot wait until Israel makes good on its goal of fulfilling their fake Old Testament prophecy of being the ruling state of the world (without Jesus) and the Jewish people wake up to find their covenant with Satan (English Freemasonry) doesn't hold, and they are wiped away.
I don't think the people of the future will show the jewish people any quarter when that time comes.

Fair point, I will edit it

Edit:
Done

This post was edited by Many_Names on Apr 2 2025 11:02pm