Tel Aviv under attack from at least eight rockets fired from Rafah in Gaza

[keenforhelp]

Hamas's military wing claimed responsibility for the attack on Sunday, according to Press Association.

What happened after by Israeli airstrikes was truly terrible - a real tragedy.

But why are Hamas still firing rockets deliberately at a residential city with no combatants.
As long as Hamas are in power rockets will never stop. Plus all the Aid Britain and America are giving just goes straight to Hamas. They started the war haven’t released the hostages and have no intention of surrendering.
The UN orders Israel to stop fighting.
But Hamas are free to continue their attacks.
Makes sense to someone I guess...........

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13461325/Tel-Aviv-attack-eight-rockets-fired-Rafah-Gaza.html

Not only that @Humdingerydoo they are doing this all over social media too.

Yup, including on this board.

The definition was from the Cambridge dictionary.

Hamas and the Israeli government are responsible for extreme actions of violence, both politically motivated, which have between them led to the death of thousands of people.

Who is doing that in this thread exactly?

Since you made the claim, I assume you can provide evidence to support it....🧐

I have a question for the OP. Is there anything that Israel could you that you would condemn? At what point do you think they've gone too far?

Bombing a school?

amp.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/jun/06/israel-gaza-war-unrwa-school-hamas-middle-east-idf

Israel maintains that the target was a Hamas compound based in the school. It claims that 20-30 fighters were killed. A military spokesperson for Israel said it was unaware of civilian casualties.

A military spokesperson for Israel said it was unaware of civilian casualties.

I am sure they were unaware. They simply turn a blind eye.

Their system allows for any number of civilian deaths for every one military ‘target’ death. These additional deaths simply don’t count.

Sadly but not unexpectedly you won't get your answer.

Which probably in itself provides the answer.

@keenforhelp incase you missed this

This.

Please remember that peoples fear of antisemitism is being used by Netanyahu and certain members of the Israeli government. I fear that Jewish peoples generational trauma is being exploited. I wouldn’t want to call these people useful idiots though.

Fear and anger about antisemitism

AND

fear and anger about the treatment of Palestinians

are both valid. It is how Netanyahu and Hamas seek to weaponise these feelings which is the problem.

@anotherlevel am I on a timer or something?

This is a thread about Tel Aviv under attack from at least eight rockets fired from Rafah in Gaza.

Therefore answering: ".Is there anything that Israel could you that you would condemn? At what point do you think they've gone too far?" would be derailment and I would be guilty of doing something I have already been accused of on another thread.

"Yesterday’s terrorists can be tomorrow’s heads of state."

Thank you for that as it affirms my own argument that Hamas as a group in addition to their leaders ARE terrorists!

So, my refutation of the cliché "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" still stands.

Are you trying to imply that if a terrorist becomes a Head of State that then retrospectively legitimises their terrorist crimes & atrocities?

If so, that simply doesn't follow. After all, that kind of conduct still continues to be illegal, a crime (see IHL, for example), undemocratic and even fascist.

Indeed, this is also a salient point:

"When we abandon the cliché that one person’s terrorist is the other’s freedom fighter, we can better understand (or adopt) Jenkin’s definition that: “One man’s terrorist is everyone’s terrorist”."

Quite.

So, groups such as Hamas and their leaders do NOT cease to be terrorists and its not dependent on whether or not they come to be a Head Of State over a territory. If it was so, this would actually incentivise terrorist groups to get into the seats of power in order to sanitise, minimise and legitimise their terrorist actions retrospectively.

It simply doesn't work like that.

It's not necessarily problematic for Sovereign States to allow terrorist leaders to occupy such a seat of power. Indeed, it is sometimes a strategy they pursue over the long term as it usually results in the degradation of a terrorist group's weapons capabilities. Such a strategy can come with a set of conditions the terrorist leader and his/her group must abide by. One of which can be that the acceptance that its wrong for undemocratic terrorist groups to try to force a population to give in to its demands.

People forget Sovereign States can use a mixture of soft and hard power against terrorist groups. It's almost never one or the other type of power.

But I'm afraid your slogan cements my argument that Hamas is a terrorist organisation even as you try to change the argument from that into a different one, i.e. Shifting The Goalposts Fallacy or very close to it.

Whilst Mandela became the Head Of State in South Africa, I'm afraid you're blatantly incorrect regarding Martin McGuinness!

In the United Kingdom, the Head Of State is the Monarch - in 2024, that's King Charles III.

First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are NOT anything close to Heads Of State. Foreign policy is also outside their remit.

Indeed, you might remember that in your State (Republic of Ireland) Martin McGuinness tried AND failed to become President in, what, 2013?

As I'm sure you're well aware of, the President is the Head Of State there.

Now, don't go shifting the goalposts with that point having been made!

As long as you are happy for that to be read as “Yes, to all Palestinians being dead if that’s deemed necessary- they have brought it on themselves after all. No to any criticism or calling it genocide”.

Can we talk again about the Double Standards part of anti-semitism?

Martin McGuinness was an elected Parliamentarian though, and Gerry Adams (in two jurisdictions!). and they are just two in a succession of Irish “terrorists”/heroes that became political leaders.

Where do you place Kurt Waldheim: literally a signed up Nazi, then Head of UN, President of Austria. Or does his nazism not qualify as terrorism?

So even if we agree with you that HAMAS leaders are terrorists today. History would teach us that that doesn’t preclude them from being future Statesmen.

@keenforhelp you're not on a timer but seeing as you've been active a lot across other thread over the past few days I would have thought you also had the time to answer the question that another poster asked you. It's rude to ignore a question unless there's nothing that Israel (government/IDF) could do that you condemn and agree with their genocidal behaviour.

What was the argument of the poster I was responding to?

Simple: "Yesterday’s terrorists can be tomorrow’s heads of state!"

The fact and reality is that neither McGuinness or Adams ever became Heads of State!

The fact and reality is that McGuinness tried AND failed in his bid to become Head of State!

The fact and reality is that the positions of MP and TD are nowhere near to being Heads Of State!

So, let's not try the Shifting The Goalposts Fallacy....eh?

Additionally, I haven't argued that terrorists can't become Heads Of State either. Hence, I don't need to spend time dealing with Strawman Arguments.

The argument you were responding to was that they "CAN" become heads of state... which you then don't deny at the bottom of your post.

Seems to me you're both on the same page here... martin mcguinness divergence aside.

You're not quite correct because the poster cited Martin McGuinness as an example of a terrorist who became a Head Of State.

Except McGuinness never did become a Head Of State which was impossible in the UK anyway.

And he was rejected in the Republic of Ireland in his efforts to run for President.

That's what I responded to which was why I had to underline it as Captaine tried to shift the goalposts to election as MP and TD.

Neither of which are Heads of State!

🙈

Either way you were generally agreeing with each other, so the McGuinness divergence was a bit pointless really 😂

Nope, McGuinness wasn't a divergence and it was a false statement that needed addressing all the same.

Which it was. 🤷‍♂️

Like I argue, a terrorist becoming a Head Of State does not legitimise their crimes and atrocities.

But that wasn't the argument. The argument was that they CAN and sometimes DO become head of state... which we all agree on. So let's move it along now