The New Lounge

[KDSTONE]

My stance is that you’re easy to troll.


My joke was about you. She’s the only murdered woman conservatives have cared about since Eve Carson.

Not even close to how low I’ve gone before.

Glad you finally admit that you are a troll.
Throwing around the word genocide to troll. Wow. You truly are a morally bankrupt individual

 

[GhostOf301]

I get the frustration—narratives around Israel and Palestine tend to get flattened into oversimplified slogans, and it’s easy to feel like the loudest voices are also the most misinformed. But boiling it all down to “myths” or blaming one side entirely doesn’t do justice to the actual history—or the human cost.

The truth is, the roots of the conflict are tangled. There were land sales, yes. There were also expulsions. There were opportunities for peace that were rejected, and there were peace deals that came with strings attached. You can point to bad decisions, broken promises, and missed chances on both sides. It’s not propaganda to acknowledge that real people lost homes, communities, and a sense of identity in the process—even if the legalities are more complicated than they’re often portrayed.

It’s also worth stepping back from the binary. You don’t have to be “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestinian” to want something better than what we’re seeing now. You can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while still believing that military occupation and open-air blockades aren’t sustainable—or just. You can acknowledge Hamas is a brutal, theocratic regime without writing off the entire Palestinian population as complicit. These things aren’t contradictions—they’re the complexity of reality.

As for the political angle, I agree there’s a strain of Western discourse—especially on the far-left—that seems more interested in outrage than in solutions. But reducing it all to anti-Americanism or blind allegiance to the “other side” feels just as knee-jerk. Some people are simply responding to suffering they see and trying to make sense of it, even if their framing is flawed.

The tragedy here isn’t just that people can’t agree on the past—it’s that, after all this time, we still haven’t found a way to move forward. And until the conversation makes room for nuance, empathy, and a little intellectual humility, we probably won’t.

You used a lot of words just to avoid being biased. But one thing you touched on exposed your bias.

"You can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while still believing that military occupation and open-air blockades aren’t sustainable"

Unless you are claiming that the land of Israel belongs to Palestine, there hasn't been military occupation since 2006. Calling it an open-air blockade is propaganda. Tens of thousands of Palestinians held work visas in Israel and traveled freely back and forth with the only requirement being they go through a check point to be inspected for bombs or guns. Silly people like to say that is a dehumanizing experience. But I like to say losing a limb to a bomb on a bus is pretty dehumanizing. Israel provides Gaza with water and electricity because the group they chose to lead them decided to spend the highest dollar amount of foreign aid than any other country on earth on tunnels and rockets instead of infrastructure. Then there's the fact that people want to say Israel holds Palestinians in and open air prison while ignoring the fact that they share a border with another country. Egypt. Who has a massive, massive wall blocking Palestinians from being able to enter their country. Wonder why.

 

[Dattier]

My point is they ignore every other conflict in the world and are obsessed with Israel. The Muslims in China are being erased and crickets. Forced to denounce Islam or die. Sterilization.
So it doesn’t appear to be a movement that is pro Muslim as much as it is anti Israel.
The jig is up. No one’s falling for the nonsense anymore.

Complete crap. You don’t get to dictate which international events others have to care about and cherry-pick specific ones as evidence of hypocrisy if they happened to miss that one.

Conservatives didn’t make a big deal about the murder of Mary Catherine Gingles, therefore y’all must not care about domestic violence, women, or redheads. 🙄

 

[Dattier]

You used a lot of words just to avoid being biased. But one thing you touched on exposed your bias.

Translation: you were very diplomatic and thoughtful, but I’m going to harp on one little thing you said.

 

[KDSTONE]

It is totally bizarre how Muslims, who celebrate a religion that didn't exist until centuries after Christ, can completely take over land and send hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians into exile and forbid them from visiting their holy lands, and be seen as indigenous while the Jews are seen as the colonizers. But, not surprising.

You used a lot of words just to avoid being biased. But one thing you touched on exposed your bias.

"You can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while still believing that military occupation and open-air blockades aren’t sustainable"

Unless you are claiming that the land of Israel belongs to Palestine, there hasn't been military occupation since 2006. Calling it an open-air blockade is propaganda. Tens of thousands of Palestinians held work visas in Israel and traveled freely back and forth with the only requirement being they go through a check point to be inspected for bombs or guns. Silly people like to say that is a dehumanizing experience. But I like to say losing a limb to a bomb on a bus is pretty dehumanizing. Israel provides Gaza with water and electricity because the group they chose to lead them decided to spend the highest dollar amount of foreign aid than any other country on earth on tunnels and rockets instead of infrastructure. Then there's the fact that people want to say Israel holds Palestinians in and open air prison while ignoring the fact that they share a border with another country. Egypt. Who has a massive, massive wall blocking Palestinians from being able to enter their country. Wonder why.

Bingo. They always tip their hand no matter how “nuanced” and unbiased they try to be.
Talking about the occupation is a shibboleth to let other Pro Pallies know their true feelings regardless of what other things they say. Obama used to throw around the word occupation to let people know he thought Israel was illegitimate

 

[KDSTONE]

Translation: you were very diplomatic and thoughtful, but I’m going to harp on one little thing you said.

One “little thing” that said a whole helluva lot

 

[GhostOf301]

Translation: you were very diplomatic and thoughtful, but I’m going to harp on one little thing you said.

No. They were repeating lies that are used to paint Israel as oppressors. That is not one little thing. It's a pretty big thing.

 

[KDSTONE]

Complete crap. You don’t get to dictate which international events others have to care about and cherry-pick specific ones as evidence of hypocrisy if they happened to miss that one.

Conservatives didn’t make a big deal about the murder of Mary Catherine Gingles, therefore y’all must not care about domestic violence, women, or redheads. 🙄

You still don’t get it. Of all the conflicts in the world, why the obsession with this one so much to the point that you say they “missed” the other ones.
You’re saying that college protesters don’t know about the Uighurs in China?

 

[KDSTONE]

Complete crap. You don’t get to dictate which international events others have to care about and cherry-pick specific ones as evidence of hypocrisy if they happened to miss that one.

Conservatives didn’t make a big deal about the murder of Mary Catherine Gingles, therefore y’all must not care about domestic violence, women, or redheads. 🙄

They “happened to miss” that 1 million Uighurs were in concentration camps?

 

[GhostOf301]

Just to bounce around a little bit to point out how disingenuous progressives are with their empathy. They want to treat black Americans special because they likely had ancestors who were slaves from Africa. Today there are more African slaves in Africa than have ever been slaves in America. Not a peep.

 

[Dattier]

Glad you finally admit that you are a troll.
Throwing around the word genocide to troll. Wow. You truly are a morally bankrupt individual

That one line was trolling. I thought it was so obvious surely you wouldn’t fall for it, but I was pleasantly surprised. I mean, I would have to have @Mac9192 ‘s level of no self-awareness and not understanding irony to claim I’ve never taken a stance in the same sentence where I called it a genocide. It’s like the Onion headline about the Pope calling for greater understanding between Catholics and the hellbound. 🤣

You don’t like what I said about Laken Riley because it points to conservative hypocrisy. Y’all haven’t found a Paul Pelosi or George Floyd joke you won’t laugh at.

 

[Dattier]

They “happened to miss” that 1 million Uighurs were in concentration camps?

In China? Yeah, info is a little hard to come by. You know it’s not front page news. You know you had to dig for it. You’re not operating in good faith.

 

[KDSTONE]

I get the frustration—narratives around Israel and Palestine tend to get flattened into oversimplified slogans, and it’s easy to feel like the loudest voices are also the most misinformed. But boiling it all down to “myths” or blaming one side entirely doesn’t do justice to the actual history—or the human cost.

The truth is, the roots of the conflict are tangled. There were land sales, yes. There were also expulsions. There were opportunities for peace that were rejected, and there were peace deals that came with strings attached. You can point to bad decisions, broken promises, and missed chances on both sides. It’s not propaganda to acknowledge that real people lost homes, communities, and a sense of identity in the process—even if the legalities are more complicated than they’re often portrayed.

It’s also worth stepping back from the binary. You don’t have to be “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestinian” to want something better than what we’re seeing now. You can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while still believing that military occupation and open-air blockades aren’t sustainable—or just. You can acknowledge Hamas is a brutal, theocratic regime without writing off the entire Palestinian population as complicit. These things aren’t contradictions—they’re the complexity of reality.

As for the political angle, I agree there’s a strain of Western discourse—especially on the far-left—that seems more interested in outrage than in solutions. But reducing it all to anti-Americanism or blind allegiance to the “other side” feels just as knee-jerk. Some people are simply responding to suffering they see and trying to make sense of it, even if their framing is flawed.

The tragedy here isn’t just that people can’t agree on the past—it’s that, after all this time, we still haven’t found a way to move forward. And until the conversation makes room for nuance, empathy, and a little intellectual humility, we probably won’t.

Just to bounce around a little bit to point out how disingenuous progressives are with their empathy. They want to treat black Americans special because they likely had ancestors who were slaves from Africa. Today there are more African slaves in Africa than have ever been slaves in America. Not a peep.

They’ve got to have the right villain, or they ignore suffering. White people fit the bill. So do Jews.
Muslims? Blacks? Not so much.

That one line was trolling. I thought it was so obvious surely you wouldn’t fall for it, but I was pleasantly surprised. I mean, I would have to have @Mac9192 ‘s level of no self-awareness and not understanding irony to claim I’ve never taken a stance in the same sentence where I called it a genocide. It’s like the Onion headline about the Pope calling for greater understanding between Catholics and the hellbound. 🤣

You don’t like what I said about Laken Riley because it points to conservative hypocrisy. Y’all haven’t found a Paul Pelosi or George Floyd joke you won’t laugh at.

Never heard a joke about either. This demonization of conservatives with you knows no bounds. My friends and I talk about religion and sports mostly. We don’t tell juvenile jokes.

 

[Dattier]

Just to bounce around a little bit to point out how disingenuous progressives are with their empathy. They want to treat black Americans special because they likely had ancestors who were slaves from Africa. Today there are more African slaves in Africa than have ever been slaves in America. Not a peep.

No, like I just told KD, what’s disingenuous is pretending you get to pick and choose exact things people have to care about or else you get to declare them frauds.

African slavery?! Are you joking? THAT is the random thing you’re pulling out of your southern-most orifice and claiming we ought to be focused on?

 

[Dattier]

My friends and I talk about religion and sports mostly. We don’t tell juvenile jokes.

See, that’s what most of us do, but you’d never know it here because y’all insist liberals are evil.

 

[KDSTONE]

In China? Yeah, info is a little hard to come by. You know it’s not front page news. You know you had to dig for it. You’re not operating in good faith.

It’s been discussed for years. Due to fears of reprisals from the CCP, lack of journalistic access to the region it’s NOT a front page story. A lot of the information is from first hand accounts of escapees. Men are being sterilized. If they refuse to denounce Islam they’re killed.

 

[KDSTONE]

Just to bounce around a little bit to point out how disingenuous progressives are with their empathy. They want to treat black Americans special because they likely had ancestors who were slaves from Africa. Today there are more African slaves in Africa than have ever been slaves in America. Not a peep.

Still Black slaves in many Arab countries as well, although not in the numbers in Africa.

 

[Th0r]

You used a lot of words just to avoid being biased. But one thing you touched on exposed your bias.

"You can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while still believing that military occupation and open-air blockades aren’t sustainable"

Unless you are claiming that the land of Israel belongs to Palestine, there hasn't been military occupation since 2006. Calling it an open-air blockade is propaganda. Tens of thousands of Palestinians held work visas in Israel and traveled freely back and forth with the only requirement being they go through a check point to be inspected for bombs or guns. Silly people like to say that is a dehumanizing experience. But I like to say losing a limb to a bomb on a bus is pretty dehumanizing. Israel provides Gaza with water and electricity because the group they chose to lead them decided to spend the highest dollar amount of foreign aid than any other country on earth on tunnels and rockets instead of infrastructure. Then there's the fact that people want to say Israel holds Palestinians in and open air prison while ignoring the fact that they share a border with another country. Egypt. Who has a massive, massive wall blocking Palestinians from being able to enter their country. Wonder why.

There hasn’t been a permanent Israeli military presence inside Gaza since 2005, but that doesn’t end Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastal waters. That level of control fits the definition of occupation under international law—based on widely accepted legal standards, not political spin. The argument isn’t about troop presence; it’s about who holds the keys to movement, trade, and essential infrastructure.

“Open-air blockade” describes the fact that over two million people are confined to a small territory with strict limitations on movement, trade, and access to basic resources. Saying some Palestinians have work visas doesn’t change the broader conditions. Those permits are limited, heavily restricted, and can be revoked at any time. Most people in Gaza can’t leave, even for urgent medical care.

Security concerns are real. Suicide bombings and rocket attacks are real. But those facts don’t eliminate the need to distinguish between targeting combatants and collectively punishing civilians. Checkpoints may be necessary, but the impact on ordinary people—many of whom have never committed any crime—is still a reality.

Israel provides limited water and electricity to Gaza, but it also controls what materials can enter, including fuel, construction supplies, and even medical equipment. The result is chronic infrastructure failure. Hamas absolutely misuses aid and prioritizes rockets over civilian needs, but that doesn’t remove Israel’s responsibility under occupation law, nor does it justify indefinite blockade conditions.

Egypt’s role doesn’t excuse Israel’s. Rafah is tightly controlled, but Egypt isn’t occupying Gaza, nor does it have the same legal or historical responsibility. Both contribute to the siege. Both can be criticized.

 

[KDSTONE]

That one line was trolling. I thought it was so obvious surely you wouldn’t fall for it, but I was pleasantly surprised. I mean, I would have to have @Mac9192 ‘s level of no self-awareness and not understanding irony to claim I’ve never taken a stance in the same sentence where I called it a genocide. It’s like the Onion headline about the Pope calling for greater understanding between Catholics and the hellbound. 🤣

You don’t like what I said about Laken Riley because it points to conservative hypocrisy. Y’all haven’t found a Paul Pelosi or George Floyd joke you won’t laugh at.

Your shtick in trade: finding creative ways to insult me and Mac in one post.
You should be more concerned with the fact that someone that has read your posts for years can’t tell the difference between your garden variety post and an intended troll post

 

[GhostOf301]

claiming we ought to be focused on?

No. Didn't claim that.

 

[KDSTONE]

There hasn’t been a permanent Israeli military presence inside Gaza since 2005, but that doesn’t end Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastal waters. That level of control fits the definition of occupation under international law—based on widely accepted legal standards, not political spin. The argument isn’t about troop presence; it’s about who holds the keys to movement, trade, and essential infrastructure.

“Open-air blockade” describes the fact that over two million people are confined to a small territory with strict limitations on movement, trade, and access to basic resources. Saying some Palestinians have work visas doesn’t change the broader conditions. Those permits are limited, heavily restricted, and can be revoked at any time. Most people in Gaza can’t leave, even for urgent medical care.

Security concerns are real. Suicide bombings and rocket attacks are real. But those facts don’t eliminate the need to distinguish between targeting combatants and collectively punishing civilians. Checkpoints may be necessary, but the impact on ordinary people—many of whom have never committed any crime—is still a reality.

Israel provides limited water and electricity to Gaza, but it also controls what materials can enter, including fuel, construction supplies, and even medical equipment. The result is chronic infrastructure failure. Hamas absolutely misuses aid and prioritizes rockets over civilian needs, but that doesn’t remove Israel’s responsibility under occupation law, nor does it justify indefinite blockade conditions.

Egypt’s role doesn’t excuse Israel’s. Rafah is tightly controlled, but Egypt isn’t occupying Gaza, nor does it have the same legal or historical responsibility. Both contribute to the siege. Both can be true

Access to Medical Care for Palestinians in Israel: Delays in a Difficult Historical Context - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[KDSTONE]

There hasn’t been a permanent Israeli military presence inside Gaza since 2005, but that doesn’t end Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastal waters. That level of control fits the definition of occupation under international law—based on widely accepted legal standards, not political spin. The argument isn’t about troop presence; it’s about who holds the keys to movement, trade, and essential infrastructure.

“Open-air blockade” describes the fact that over two million people are confined to a small territory with strict limitations on movement, trade, and access to basic resources. Saying some Palestinians have work visas doesn’t change the broader conditions. Those permits are limited, heavily restricted, and can be revoked at any time. Most people in Gaza can’t leave, even for urgent medical care.

Security concerns are real. Suicide bombings and rocket attacks are real. But those facts don’t eliminate the need to distinguish between targeting combatants and collectively punishing civilians. Checkpoints may be necessary, but the impact on ordinary people—many of whom have never committed any crime—is still a reality.

Israel provides limited water and electricity to Gaza, but it also controls what materials can enter, including fuel, construction supplies, and even medical equipment. The result is chronic infrastructure failure. Hamas absolutely misuses aid and prioritizes rockets over civilian needs, but that doesn’t remove Israel’s responsibility under occupation law, nor does it justify indefinite blockade conditions.

Egypt’s role doesn’t excuse Israel’s. Rafah is tightly controlled, but Egypt isn’t occupying Gaza, nor does it have the same legal or historical responsibility. Both contribute to the siege. Both can be criticized.

Your claim about medical care in Gaza is not true. Even if it were, what other country on Earth is responsible for the medical care of a people who favor their annihilation and support a genocidal terrorist group?
There’s a lot in your essay I could easily disprove, but I ain’t got all night.

 

[GhostOf301]

There hasn’t been a permanent Israeli military presence inside Gaza since 2005, but that doesn’t end Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastal waters. That level of control fits the definition of occupation under international law—based on widely accepted legal standards, not political spin. The argument isn’t about troop presence; it’s about who holds the keys to movement, trade, and essential infrastructure.

“Open-air blockade” describes the fact that over two million people are confined to a small territory with strict limitations on movement, trade, and access to basic resources. Saying some Palestinians have work visas doesn’t change the broader conditions. Those permits are limited, heavily restricted, and can be revoked at any time. Most people in Gaza can’t leave, even for urgent medical care.

Security concerns are real. Suicide bombings and rocket attacks are real. But those facts don’t eliminate the need to distinguish between targeting combatants and collectively punishing civilians. Checkpoints may be necessary, but the impact on ordinary people—many of whom have never committed any crime—is still a reality.

Israel provides limited water and electricity to Gaza, but it also controls what materials can enter, including fuel, construction supplies, and even medical equipment. The result is chronic infrastructure failure. Hamas absolutely misuses aid and prioritizes rockets over civilian needs, but that doesn’t remove Israel’s responsibility under occupation law, nor does it justify indefinite blockade conditions.

Egypt’s role doesn’t excuse Israel’s. Rafah is tightly controlled, but Egypt isn’t occupying Gaza, nor does it have the same legal or historical responsibility. Both contribute to the siege. Both can be criticized.

Okay. So when you have a group of people who live right next door to you who want you exterminated, including the vast majority of its citizens, and have proven time and time again that they will take a mile for every inch you give them to carry out attacks on your citizens, what is your recommendation for policy to protect yourself from said terrorists? Do you think Israel should ease what control they have to protect their civilians, knowing what the results would be? Do you believe in dialog with terrorists?

Whatever we believe happened before to justify hamas in murdering, raping and dismemberming the bodies of women and children, we can't see a world where hamas is allowed to survive. Them not surrendering and returning the hostages is what is going to lead to civilian casualties and Israel has a right to eradicate hamas.

 

[Th0r]

Access to Medical Care for Palestinians in Israel: Delays in a Difficult Historical Context - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thousands do receive medical care in Israel—but that doesn’t disprove the existence of systemic restrictions. Medical permits are frequently delayed or denied without explanation, especially during escalations. Patients have died waiting for approvals or been blocked for “security” without specific allegations. The article itself notes that access is not guaranteed and remains subject to unpredictable political and security decisions.

Israel’s provision of some medical care doesn’t erase its control over Gaza’s health infrastructure, nor the impact of siege conditions on hospitals, electricity, medicine supply, or water quality. Allowing limited access doesn’t negate responsibility for broader humanitarian consequences under blockade.

Your claim about medical care in Gaza is not true. Even if it were, what other country on Earth is responsible for the medical care of a people who favor their annihilation and support a genocidal terrorist group?
There’s a lot in your essay I could easily disprove, but I ain’t got all night.

The facts are straightforward: Gaza’s healthcare system is under-resourced largely because of import restrictions, infrastructure damage from repeated military operations, and tight controls on goods labeled “dual-use”—which includes items as basic as medical equipment and spare parts. That’s documented by independent medical and humanitarian organizations, not political groups.

As for responsibility: when a country maintains control over a population’s borders, economy, and access to essential services, it assumes legal obligations under international law—regardless of the political climate. The character of a population doesn’t erase those obligations. That’s not a moral argument; it’s a legal one.

If something I said is wrong, call it out directly. Saying you “could” disprove it but don’t have time isn’t a real argument—it’s just hand-waving.

 

[Mac9192]

Your shtick in trade: finding creative ways to insult me and Mac in one post.
You should be more concerned with the fact that someone that has read your posts for years can’t tell the difference between your garden variety post and an intended troll post

All @Dattier is interested in is looking for a problem, then blaming it on, you got it, the right. Typical of liberals. He’s exposed himself for being the hack he is after what we watched the last four years. He should have done what the ol gal did, and that’s tuck his tail between his legs and hide.


And he’s your postcard liberal: white male that’s educated. But a turd that’s been spray painted is still a turd.

 

[Th0r]

Okay. So when you have a group of people who live right next door to you who want you exterminated, including the vast majority of its citizens, and have proven time and time again that they will take a mile for every inch you give them to carry out attacks on your citizens, what is your recommendation for policy to protect yourself from said terrorists? Do you think Israel should ease what control they have to protect their civilians, knowing what the results would be? Do you believe in dialog with terrorists?

Whatever we believe happened before to justify hamas in murdering, raping and dismemberming the bodies of women and children, we can't see a world where hamas is allowed to survive. Them not surrendering and returning the hostages is what is going to lead to civilian casualties and Israel has a right to eradicate hamas.

Israel has the right to defend its population and to target armed groups like Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., and others. But military action doesn’t override legal or moral obligations to protect civilians. That’s not about feelings—it’s international law.

Collective punishment, long-term siege, and indefinite control over another population haven’t produced security or peace. Tightening restrictions hasn’t stopped violence; it’s fueled it. Easing control doesn’t mean abandoning security—it means building a policy rooted in long-term stability instead of endless cycles of war.

Dialogue with terrorists isn’t about legitimizing them—it’s about ending conflict. Israel has negotiated with Hamas before, including for hostage swaps. Refusing to talk doesn’t end terrorism; it just narrows options to perpetual war, which puts more civilians—Israeli and Palestinian—at risk.

Hamas not surrendering doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility for how it chooses to wage war. Civilian casualties aren’t inevitable—they’re the result of military choices. Holding all 2 million Gazans hostage to Hamas’s decisions is exactly the logic Hamas thrives on.

 

[KDSTONE]

Israel has the right to defend its population and to target armed groups like Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., and others. But military action doesn’t override legal or moral obligations to protect civilians. That’s not about feelings—it’s international law.

Collective punishment, long-term siege, and indefinite control over another population haven’t produced security or peace. Tightening restrictions hasn’t stopped violence; it’s fueled it. Easing control doesn’t mean abandoning security—it means building a policy rooted in long-term stability instead of endless cycles of war.

Dialogue with terrorists isn’t about legitimizing them—it’s about ending conflict. Israel has negotiated with Hamas before, including for hostage swaps. Refusing to talk doesn’t end terrorism; it just narrows options to perpetual war, which puts more civilians—Israeli and Palestinian—at risk.

Hamas not surrendering doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility for how it chooses to wage war. Civilian casualties aren’t inevitable—they’re the result of military choices. Holding all 2 million Gazans hostage to Hamas’s decisions is exactly the logic Hamas thrives on.

How do you target an armed group like Hamas which uses its own population as human shields? That embeds its military operations in hospitals and apt buildings? All without killing civilians? No army can reach its objectives if zero civilian casualties is the goal.
Israel can’t allow its war strategies to become paralyzed by the tactics of Hamas.
That’s on Hamas if civilians are killed not the IDF.

 

[KDSTONE]

You used a lot of words just to avoid being biased. But one thing you touched on exposed your bias.

"You can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while still believing that military occupation and open-air blockades aren’t sustainable"

Unless you are claiming that the land of Israel belongs to Palestine, there hasn't been military occupation since 2006. Calling it an open-air blockade is propaganda. Tens of thousands of Palestinians held work visas in Israel and traveled freely back and forth with the only requirement being they go through a check point to be inspected for bombs or guns. Silly people like to say that is a dehumanizing experience. But I like to say losing a limb to a bomb on a bus is pretty dehumanizing. Israel provides Gaza with water and electricity because the group they chose to lead them decided to spend the highest dollar amount of foreign aid than any other country on earth on tunnels and rockets instead of infrastructure. Then there's the fact that people want to say Israel holds Palestinians in and open air prison while ignoring the fact that they share a border with another country. Egypt. Who has a massive, massive wall blocking Palestinians from being able to enter their country. Wonder why.

Thousands do receive medical care in Israel—but that doesn’t disprove the existence of systemic restrictions. Medical permits are frequently delayed or denied without explanation, especially during escalations. Patients have died waiting for approvals or been blocked for “security” without specific allegations. The article itself notes that access is not guaranteed and remains subject to unpredictable political and security decisions.

Israel’s provision of some medical care doesn’t erase its control over Gaza’s health infrastructure, nor the impact of siege conditions on hospitals, electricity, medicine supply, or water quality. Allowing limited access doesn’t negate responsibility for broader humanitarian consequences under blockade.


The facts are straightforward: Gaza’s healthcare system is under-resourced largely because of import restrictions, infrastructure damage from repeated military operations, and tight controls on goods labeled “dual-use”—which includes items as basic as medical equipment and spare parts. That’s documented by independent medical and humanitarian organizations, not political groups.

As for responsibility: when a country maintains control over a population’s borders, economy, and access to essential services, it assumes legal obligations under international law—regardless of the political climate. The character of a population doesn’t erase those obligations. That’s not a moral argument; it’s a legal one.

If something I said is wrong, call it out directly. Saying you “could” disprove it but don’t have time isn’t a real argument—it’s just hand-waving.

I notice you never reference any of your allegations. Sounds like a regurgitation of anti Israel tropes that you’ve picked up from the comments sections on far left social media posts.
You do realize that Gaza had 40 hospitals paid for mainly by Jewish and Christian charities as well as the ubiquitous Western aid.
At least some of it didn’t go to tunnels and Hamas leaders.
The hospitals were destroyed when Hamas decided to use the facilities for their military operations and it’s Israel’s fault Gazans don’t have elite health care?
Thanks for dropping the pretense of neutrality and letting us know who you really are.

 

[Th0r]

How do you target an armed group like Hamas which uses its own population as human shields? That embeds its military operations in hospitals and apt buildings? All without killing civilians? No army can reach its objectives if zero civilian casualties is the goal.
Israel can’t allow its war strategies to become paralyzed by the tactics of Hamas.
That’s on Hamas if civilians are killed not the IDF.

Hamas intentionally operating in civilian areas is a documented and serious issue. But the presence of militants near civilians doesn’t give Israel a free pass to disregard proportionality or distinction. Those are core principles of the laws of armed conflict, and they exist precisely because groups like Hamas use these tactics.

War isn’t clean. Civilian casualties may happen—but they’re not automatically excused. If a strike is expected to cause excessive civilian harm compared to the direct military gain, it’s unlawful. That standard doesn’t vanish because the enemy violates it.

Saying it’s “on Hamas” oversimplifies the reality. Hamas is responsible for its war crimes. But Israel is responsible for its own. If the IDF knowingly bombs areas packed with civilians without exhausting alternatives, that’s not on Hamas—that’s on the trigger pulled anyway.

Civilians aren’t shields if the attacker chooses to fire through them.

 

[KDSTONE]

Israel has the right to defend its population and to target armed groups like Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., and others. But military action doesn’t override legal or moral obligations to protect civilians. That’s not about feelings—it’s international law.

Collective punishment, long-term siege, and indefinite control over another population haven’t produced security or peace. Tightening restrictions hasn’t stopped violence; it’s fueled it. Easing control doesn’t mean abandoning security—it means building a policy rooted in long-term stability instead of endless cycles of war.

Dialogue with terrorists isn’t about legitimizing them—it’s about ending conflict. Israel has negotiated with Hamas before, including for hostage swaps. Refusing to talk doesn’t end terrorism; it just narrows options to perpetual war, which puts more civilians—Israeli and Palestinian—at risk.

Hamas not surrendering doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility for how it chooses to wage war. Civilian casualties aren’t inevitable—they’re the result of military choices. Holding all 2 million Gazans hostage to Hamas’s decisions is exactly the logic Hamas thrives on.

Collective punishment? They voted for Hamas and the majority continue to support Hamas. They’re no more innocent than the German civilians in Nazi Germany. A higher % of Gazans support Hamas than did the Germans support the Nazis. The majority of those killed are men of military age. Israel’s done better than the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq but I don’t remember the Leftist lunatics pissing all over themselves on college campuses during those wars, not to this extent anyway

 

[KDSTONE]

Hamas intentionally operating in civilian areas is a documented and serious issue. But the presence of militants near civilians doesn’t give Israel a free pass to disregard proportionality or distinction. Those are core principles of the laws of armed conflict, and they exist precisely because groups like Hamas use these tactics.

War isn’t clean. Civilian casualties may happen—but they’re not automatically excused. If a strike is expected to cause excessive civilian harm compared to the direct military gain, it’s unlawful. That standard doesn’t vanish because the enemy violates it.

Saying it’s “on Hamas” oversimplifies the reality. Hamas is responsible for its war crimes. But Israel is responsible for its own. If the IDF knowingly bombs areas packed with civilians without exhausting alternatives, that’s not on Hamas—that’s on the trigger pulled anyway.

Civilians aren’t shields if the attacker chooses to fire through them.

Noble sentiments, but it’s impossible to win a war with the restrictions you’d impose w/o drastically increasing the risk to the IDF. Not gonna happen.

 

[KDSTONE]

Hamas intentionally operating in civilian areas is a documented and serious issue. But the presence of militants near civilians doesn’t give Israel a free pass to disregard proportionality or distinction. Those are core principles of the laws of armed conflict, and they exist precisely because groups like Hamas use these tactics.

War isn’t clean. Civilian casualties may happen—but they’re not automatically excused. If a strike is expected to cause excessive civilian harm compared to the direct military gain, it’s unlawful. That standard doesn’t vanish because the enemy violates it.

Saying it’s “on Hamas” oversimplifies the reality. Hamas is responsible for its war crimes. But Israel is responsible for its own. If the IDF knowingly bombs areas packed with civilians without exhausting alternatives, that’s not on Hamas—that’s on the trigger pulled anyway.

Civilians aren’t shields if the attacker chooses to fire through them.

You’re overlooking the fact that Hamas is usually dressed in civilian gear, yet another violation of intl law. Hamas is nearly always in areas packed with civilians. When they’re not, they’re hiding in tunnels surrounded by Israeli hostages. You’re holding Israel to an impossibly high standard that would lead to Israel doing exactly nothing to defeat Hamas. Spoken like a true Leftist. I’ve read these arguments my entire life.
Did you really think we would buy your “Look at how enlightened and fair minded I am posts”?
You betrayed that facade in your very first post

I will say that at least you’re familiar with some specifics of the conflict, as opposed to Datt who only bleats a few platitudes now and again about the topic

 

[Th0r]

I notice you never reference any of your allegations. Sounds like a regurgitation of anti Israel tropes that you’ve picked up from the comments sections on far left social media posts.
You do realize that Gaza had 40 hospitals paid for mainly by Jewish and Christian charities as well as the ubiquitous Western aid.
At least some of it didn’t go to tunnels and Hamas leaders.
The hospitals were destroyed when Hamas decided to use the facilities for their military operations and it’s Israel’s fault Gazans don’t have elite health care?
Thanks for dropping the pretense of neutrality and letting us know who you really are.

Gaza’s hospitals have received funding from a range of sources over the years, including international aid and private donations. That doesn’t change the fact that Israel tightly controls what medical supplies and building materials can enter, and that the blockade has contributed to chronic shortages, power outages, and a collapse of the healthcare system well before this war.

When hospitals are bombed, the legal and moral question isn’t just where Hamas was operating—it’s how Israel assessed the target and whether the strike was proportionate. Even if militants are present, civilian infrastructure doesn’t become fair game by default. That’s not a “trope.” It’s the Geneva Conventions.

Skepticism of Hamas and critique of Israeli policy can—and should—exist at the same time. Pretending they can’t is just a way to avoid accountability.

Collective punishment? They voted for Hamas and the majority continue to support Hamas. They’re no more innocent than the German civilians in Nazi Germany. A higher % of Gazans support Hamas than did the Germans support the Nazis. The majority of those killed are men of military age. Israel’s done better than the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq but I don’t remember the Leftist lunatics pissing all over themselves on college campuses during those wars, not to this extent anyway

Voting doesn’t erase civilian protections. Hamas won a single election in 2006; no elections have been held since. The population is majority under 18—meaning most never voted at all. Support for Hamas varies by circumstance and spikes during escalations, often out of defiance, not ideology. None of that justifies treating 2 million people as collectively guilty.

The Nazi Germany comparison is false both morally and historically. Civilians in a dictatorship—especially one under blockade—don’t have real political agency. International law is clear: civilian status doesn’t hinge on ideology or assumed allegiance.

As for casualties, labeling adult males as “military-age” doesn’t make them combatants. That’s profiling, not intelligence. The burden is on the attacker to distinguish fighters from civilians. The U.S. was rightly criticized for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference now is that global awareness and information access are higher—people see the consequences in real time. That’s not “pissing themselves.” That’s accountability.

 

[KDSTONE]

All @Dattier is interested in is looking for a problem, then blaming it on, you got it, the right. Typical of liberals. He’s exposed himself for being the hack he is after what we watched the last four years. He should have done what the ol gal did, and that’s tuck his tail between his legs and hide.


And he’s your postcard liberal: white male that’s educated. But a turd that’s been spray painted is still a turd.

Am I the only one who thinks Datt and Thor could be the same person? Thor seems like a more polite, more knowledgeable version of Datt. Maybe Datt’s alter ego is beginning to emerge as the dominant one. Only time will tell.

 

[GhostOf301]

Israel has the right to defend its population and to target armed groups like Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., and others. But military action doesn’t override legal or moral obligations to protect civilians. That’s not about feelings—it’s international law.

Collective punishment, long-term siege, and indefinite control over another population haven’t produced security or peace. Tightening restrictions hasn’t stopped violence; it’s fueled it. Easing control doesn’t mean abandoning security—it means building a policy rooted in long-term stability instead of endless cycles of war.

Dialogue with terrorists isn’t about legitimizing them—it’s about ending conflict. Israel has negotiated with Hamas before, including for hostage swaps. Refusing to talk doesn’t end terrorism; it just narrows options to perpetual war, which puts more civilians—Israeli and Palestinian—at risk.

Hamas not surrendering doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility for how it chooses to wage war. Civilian casualties aren’t inevitable—they’re the result of military choices. Holding all 2 million Gazans hostage to Hamas’s decisions is exactly the logic Hamas thrives on.

So. What do you suggest Israel’s policy be?

 

[KDSTONE]

Gaza’s hospitals have received funding from a range of sources over the years, including international aid and private donations. That doesn’t change the fact that Israel tightly controls what medical supplies and building materials can enter, and that the blockade has contributed to chronic shortages, power outages, and a collapse of the healthcare system well before this war.

When hospitals are bombed, the legal and moral question isn’t just where Hamas was operating—it’s how Israel assessed the target and whether the strike was proportionate. Even if militants are present, civilian infrastructure doesn’t become fair game by default. That’s not a “trope.” It’s the Geneva Conventions.

Skepticism of Hamas and critique of Israeli policy can—and should—exist at the same time. Pretending they can’t is just a way to avoid accountability.


Voting doesn’t erase civilian protections. Hamas won a single election in 2006; no elections have been held since. The population is majority under 18—meaning most never voted at all. Support for Hamas varies by circumstance and spikes during escalations, often out of defiance, not ideology. None of that justifies treating 2 million people as collectively guilty.

The Nazi Germany comparison is false both morally and historically. Civilians in a dictatorship—especially one under blockade—don’t have real political agency. International law is clear: civilian status doesn’t hinge on ideology or assumed allegiance.

As for casualties, labeling adult males as “military-age” doesn’t make them combatants. That’s profiling, not intelligence. The burden is on the attacker to distinguish fighters from civilians. The U.S. was rightly criticized for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference now is that global awareness and information access are higher—people see the consequences in real time. That’s not “pissing themselves.” That’s accountability.

“Labeling adult males as military age doesn’t make them combatants”. Jesus.
The proPallies have been saying for a year and a half that most of those killed are women and children. This refutes that. Since Hamas lives amongst civilians, pretends to be civilians, you know like a Dr or U.N. worker, surely you can extend a little grace if mistakes are made from time to time.

 

[KDSTONE]

Gaza’s hospitals have received funding from a range of sources over the years, including international aid and private donations. That doesn’t change the fact that Israel tightly controls what medical supplies and building materials can enter, and that the blockade has contributed to chronic shortages, power outages, and a collapse of the healthcare system well before this war.

When hospitals are bombed, the legal and moral question isn’t just where Hamas was operating—it’s how Israel assessed the target and whether the strike was proportionate. Even if militants are present, civilian infrastructure doesn’t become fair game by default. That’s not a “trope.” It’s the Geneva Conventions.

Skepticism of Hamas and critique of Israeli policy can—and should—exist at the same time. Pretending they can’t is just a way to avoid accountability.


Voting doesn’t erase civilian protections. Hamas won a single election in 2006; no elections have been held since. The population is majority under 18—meaning most never voted at all. Support for Hamas varies by circumstance and spikes during escalations, often out of defiance, not ideology. None of that justifies treating 2 million people as collectively guilty.

The Nazi Germany comparison is false both morally and historically. Civilians in a dictatorship—especially one under blockade—don’t have real political agency. International law is clear: civilian status doesn’t hinge on ideology or assumed allegiance.

As for casualties, labeling adult males as “military-age” doesn’t make them combatants. That’s profiling, not intelligence. The burden is on the attacker to distinguish fighters from civilians. The U.S. was rightly criticized for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference now is that global awareness and information access are higher—people see the consequences in real time. That’s not “pissing themselves.” That’s accountability.

The IDF is not going door to door in a hospital, putting its soldiers in harms’ way to avoid civilian casualties when there’s no way to discern civilian and combatant in this part of the world. You’re naive to the point of being ridiculous
Use of the word proportionate. Another tell tale sign. Virtually the only time I hear that word is in relation to the IDF. Astonishing

 

[Th0r]

You’re overlooking the fact that Hamas is usually dressed in civilian gear, yet another violation of intl law. Hamas is nearly always in areas packed with civilians. When they’re not, they’re hiding in tunnels surrounded by Israeli hostages. You’re holding Israel to an impossibly high standard that would lead to Israel doing exactly nothing to defeat Hamas. Spoken like a true Leftist. I’ve read these arguments my entire life.
Did you really think we would buy your “Look at how enlightened and fair minded I am posts”?
You betrayed that facade in your very first post

I will say that at least you’re familiar with some specifics of the conflict, as opposed to Datt who only bleats a few platitudes now and again about the topic

Hamas violating international law doesn’t give Israel a free hand to do the same. Civilians don’t lose protection because fighters are nearby, and not every adult male in civilian clothes is a legitimate target.

Enforcing international law isn’t an “impossibly high standard”—it’s the bare minimum for any military claiming to act within the law. If Israel wants to defeat Hamas while maintaining moral and strategic legitimacy, that standard isn’t a burden—it’s essential.

Knowing the details of the conflict doesn’t mean I’m posturing. I’m not attacking you personally —I just fundamentally disagree with your assessment of the situation.

 

[GhostOf301]

Hamas intentionally operating in civilian areas is a documented and serious issue. But the presence of militants near civilians doesn’t give Israel a free pass to disregard proportionality or distinction. Those are core principles of the laws of armed conflict, and they exist precisely because groups like Hamas use these tactics.

War isn’t clean. Civilian casualties may happen—but they’re not automatically excused. If a strike is expected to cause excessive civilian harm compared to the direct military gain, it’s unlawful. That standard doesn’t vanish because the enemy violates it.

Saying it’s “on Hamas” oversimplifies the reality. Hamas is responsible for its war crimes. But Israel is responsible for its own. If the IDF knowingly bombs areas packed with civilians without exhausting alternatives, that’s not on Hamas—that’s on the trigger pulled anyway.

Civilians aren’t shields if the attacker chooses to fire through them.

War is hell. War is all hamas knows. Gaza elected Hamas and overwhelmingly supports them. Hamas waged war and the civilians in Gaza are in hell because of it. Israel has set its objectives and that is the total annihilation of hamas. How do you suggest they reach their objectives?

 

[KDSTONE]

Israel has the right to defend its population and to target armed groups like Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., and others. But military action doesn’t override legal or moral obligations to protect civilians. That’s not about feelings—it’s international law.

Collective punishment, long-term siege, and indefinite control over another population haven’t produced security or peace. Tightening restrictions hasn’t stopped violence; it’s fueled it. Easing control doesn’t mean abandoning security—it means building a policy rooted in long-term stability instead of endless cycles of war.

Dialogue with terrorists isn’t about legitimizing them—it’s about ending conflict. Israel has negotiated with Hamas before, including for hostage swaps. Refusing to talk doesn’t end terrorism; it just narrows options to perpetual war, which puts more civilians—Israeli and Palestinian—at risk.

Hamas not surrendering doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility for how it chooses to wage war. Civilian casualties aren’t inevitable—they’re the result of military choices. Holding all 2 million Gazans hostage to Hamas’s decisions is exactly the logic Hamas thrives on.

Hostage swaps. lol.
I think you mean terrorists for kidnapped civilians swaps.
Good Lord you’re brainwashed.