6000 Palestinians made their way across the wall.

[vivainsomnia]

For a start, I will say that I genuinely have no interest in siding with Hamas, or the IDF, or Palestinians, or Jewish people. I am only interested in better understanding all positions. I have just watched the interview, which turned out to be more of an argument between Kisin and Ammous from a year ago. One main point of disagreement and conflict between them is their differing views on Hamas intentions in Oct 2023.

Kisin believes that it was always Hamas plan to inflict terror and suffering to civilians on that days, whereas Ammous appears to think the intention, at least initially, was just to release Palestinian prisoners.

I read this on Wikipedia The attacks began with a barrage of at least 4,300 rockets launched into Israel[28][29][30] and vehicle-transported and powered paraglider incursions into Israel.[31][32] Hamas militants breached the Gaza–Israel barrier, attacking military bases and massacring civilians in 21 communities, including Be'eri, Kfar Aza, Nir Oz, Netiv Haasara, and Alumim. According to an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) report that revised the estimate on the number of attackers, 6,000 Gazans breached the border in 119 locations into Israel, including 3,800 from the elite "Nukhba forces" and 2,200 civilians and other militants.[33][28][29] Additionally, the IDF report estimated 1,000 Gazans fired rockets from the Gaza Strip, bringing the total number of participants on Hamas's side to 7,000.

It made me think: Could it be that the plan, as it was formulated before the attack, was for Hamas to attack the military bases mainly and but it got totally out of control?

Was it part of the plan that 2,200 civilians would also make their way to Israel and do whatever they did? Do we know the exact role these civilians took? Were they tasked to kidnap people, to rape and kill in the most vicious ways, or did their crossing was unplanned and their actions unexpected?

This is leaving me confused because if it was the case, for instance, that some, or even maybe the worse of the savagery was undertaken by these civilians, I can understand the IDF thinking that the war is not just about Nukhba forces but also about people who would not have been previously identified as dangerous, ie. Palestinian civilians who they are now killing indiscriminately.

Or is it that although classified as civilians, they actually belong to some 'group' that encourages violence against Israel?

Or were these civilians just going with the flow and did take part in some of the demonstrations but did not participate in any of the barbary?

Does anyone actually have any answers to these questions rather than reaching their own biased conclusions as both Kisin and Ammous are doing on that podcast?

This level of delusion in trying to believe Hamas is not THAT bad is really dangerous and offensive IMO.

What does it say about these ‘thugs’, who included Palestinian civilians let’s remember, that they were given free rein for the first time ever to do what they wanted to Israelis, including women and children, that they embarked on a frenzied orgy of mass slaughter, mutilation, burning, decapitation and gang rape?

You excuse it as it all went ‘horrifically wrong’ and Hamas admitted to ‘faults’ while intimating that it was Israel’s fault for it being all too easy to breach security.

One would assume from your defence of Hamas that they were expecting to trade, that you don’t see a problem with the taking of babies, children and the elderly as hostages?

You are blatantly defending Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK.

I note MN has not deleted your post.

I think the night shift can seem a little tardy at responding to reports, I occasionally wonder if some people time posts for that reason, or whether they are just in different time zones.
Nevertheless, when reported, those that break talk guidelines, such as implicit support for a proscribed terrorist group (among other things) tend to get deleted eventually.

There is a very easy way to tell them apart:
Militants(combatants) are armed.
Civilians are unarmed.

One of the reasons that Hamas are terrorists is because they fight in civilian dress.

Oct 7th survivors and reports claiming “civilians” from Gaza participated are really reporting the number of terrorists not in uniform but wearing civilian dress.

ALL the October 7th attackers were terrorists regardless of which group they belonged to or whether they acted opportunistically as lone wolves.

Any decent news source should be clear that Hamas doesn’t distinguish between civilians and combatants when quoting the death count.

Neither did Israel in its publicised death count of Oct 7th. We had to wait over a year after it was over to get the break down of civilian vs military deaths and even then it was quietly and barely reported on.

However, IDF’s own count shows that 17% of the Palestinian dead in Gaza were terrorists and 83% were civilians from Oct 23 to May 25. This ratio is incredibly poor and indicative of either negligent incompetence or indiscriminate attacks either of which puts us into war crime territory.

But you can see from the videos that the civilians were unarmed. They still managed to carry out vile atrocities, with great enthusiasm.

I'm very wary of this perception of Israel as a load of angry men bombing helpless women and children. There are some pretty fucking angry men hiding behind them.

The cheering in the streets after 9/11 and the London bombings is all I need to know.

I couldn’t care less.

'However, IDF’s own count shows that 17% of the Palestinian dead in Gaza were terrorists and 83% were civilians from Oct 23 to May 25. This ratio is incredibly poor and indicative of either negligent incompetence or indiscriminate attacks either of which puts us into war crime territory.'

17% were known to the IDF that does not mean the 83% were civilians. This was discussed at length on here or on another thread. It was poor reporting on the Guardian's part, unsurprisingly.

You can literally have a photo of someone embracing Sinwar and they will still be described as a brave journalist.

Yes photographic evidence was provided of that journalist having close ties to Hamas but it wasn’t taken on board. Suggestions that photos were doctored or so what? Doesn’t prove he sympathised with Hamas.

Indeed. To be honest I find it hard to believe any journalist's career would ever have got off the ground in Gaza without being at least a Hamas sympathiser.

They must have been a Hamas sympathiser is not justification for targeting journalists. Not even the Israeli administration themselves are trying to say that. Sympathising is not active support of a terrorist group.

Thankfully MN 'got there in the end' and it's deleted. The open support/minimising/excuses for terrorism and the lack of accountability of murderers, rapists and general vile scum that would happily rape and murder women who just happened to be at a festival or in a kibbutz is delusional - they wouldn't worry too much about westerners who got in the way; yet here we are with westerners cheering them along with their merry crusade.

Gangs of men, many on mopeds, cars etc can and did rape, torture, murder and take hostage. The video with the Bibas mother and her babies on a motorbike as they were taken away, distraught, taken away to their deaths by 'ordinary men from Palestine'. Not pleasant men who wish to build a better future for their own wives and children, just men who hate and want to kill and wipe out and yet also stick their hands out for aid from the West and fail to link cause and effect - kill, rape, torture and take hostage then expect conflict.

Yes, I'm sure Hamas sympathisers are lovely folk who wouldn't wish harm on anyone.

You can’t target journalists in a war zone because you make the assumption they aren’t “lovely”

Is what you are saying? Do you think that Israel should target and kill journalists in the conflict? Because “they must be sympathetic to Hamas”

Plus this journalist was also on the Hamas payroll according to documents seized by the IDF so he was more than someone who "just" sympathised with the goals of the organisation (killing Jews etc).

Not "journalists" in general but specific ones I would say it is justifiable if they have known connections to Hamas. Because if they are working for Hamas on propaganda they are as culpable as people working for Hamas in military ways.

I think there was enough discussion at the time about the heavily disputed evidence that Israel provided defending the targeted killing of a particular journalist.

I’m responding to a more general statement about all journalists being sympathetic to Hamas. But the fact is, even if they are sympathetic, and we have no evidence to say they all are, then it still isn’t justifiable to target journalists.

Yes I don't want to get into a big discussion about that particular journalist.

It all depends (speaking generally) on what is meant by "sympathetic" to Hamas.

I don't believe the IDF just targets journalists indiscriminately (I know many disagree). I do believe it's justifiable for them to target "journalists" who are only concerned about propaganda for Hamas. Where they get intelligence that particular journalists are working for Hamas, that changes their role from civilian, in my opinion.

This is an interesting thread I came across about Hamas’s spokesman Abu Obeida and the Hamas’ propaganda apparatus. I wonder how many of these ‘journalists’ were part of his ‘publicity department’?

https://x.com/JewishWarrior13/status/1962907693372334378

Propaganda isn’t a weapon so you can’t target them for their words. It’s too wooly to start deciding what is propaganda and what is the truth… I mean maybe you have hit the nail on the head and this is what Israel is actually doing.

Israel tried to prove that Anas Al sharif was an active combatant and active in the hostilities to justify his death. Israel aren’t trying to say themselves that they are targeting journalists for their words alone because they know this doesn’t wash.

And hasn’t it worked like a charm.

To be brutally honest, I don't really care. Given that Hamas ensure that it's impossible to differentiate "friend" (meaning, you know, possibly Hamas but possibly not...) from "foe" (meaning someone actively seeking the erasure of Israel and the Jewish people more generally), I wouldn't blame Israel for considering them all "foes" and think they have exercised extraordinary restraint in not actually carrying out the carpet-bombing genocide they are accused of doing.

Well at least you are honest. You don’t care who dies in Gaza because they can all legitimately considered foes, even the children presumably.

At least you aren’t trying to deny it or justify it to yourself.