An Israeli military spokesperson confirmed that there were “hostage situations” in the southern city of Ofakim and the nearby kibbutz of Beeri.

An Israeli military spokesperson confirmed that there were “hostage situations” in the southern city of Ofakim and the nearby kibbutz of Beeri.

Hamas said it had taken “dozens” of Israeli soldiers hostage and moved them to the Gaza Strip as footage emerged appearing to show gunmen in military fatigues leading a group of mostly barefoot women down a street in Israel.

The announcement and video verified by NBC News came hours after Hamas launched a deadly land, air and sea attack and fired a huge barrage of rockets at Israel.

  • danhakimi@kbin.social
    37·
    1 year ago

    Correction: Terrorist activity, predictably spiked after the blockade in 2007. I mean, turning countries into open-air concentration camps has that effect.

    Your tactic is superficial. A blockade does not make a concentration camp. You're evoking imagery of something that is, in fact, wholly unrelated. you chose that term specifically in your intentional, racist attempt to paint Jews as Nazis. I hope to hell nobody falls for it.

    What? How does oppressing civilians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem help combat terror?

    Specifically, the blockade helps fight terror. The blockade prevents terrorists from getting materials to make weapons. And Hamas uses anything it can get its hands on into a weapon. That's part of the reason they work so hard to control the flow of aid within Palestine—the other reasons being quite obvious.

    Also check the official definition of Apartheid. Do you need me to tell you how Israel fits the definition?

    Only insofar as every border everywhere fits the definition. South African Apartheid—the thing people are trying to reference in order to demonize Israel—was intra-state apartheid. It was not an instance of border enforcement. Border enforcement is incredibly common. The Israel-Palestine conflict has nothing to do with Apartheid South Africa, but again, you people know that people think Apartheid is bad, so those are your go-tos. Israel is Nazis, Israel is Apartheid. Neither claim holds up to any scrutiny. You'd be better off arguing that Israel was a communist nation, tbh.

    There's nothing necessary about the oppression of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza or the West Bank. The terror attacks you're talking about are the result of the oppression; don't mix your cause and effect.

    Muslims and Arabs in the region have been terrorizing Jews since at least the late 1800s. They were never willing to accept any form of peace or coexistence.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      21·
      1 year ago

      A blockade does not make a concentration camp.

      That's a metaphor, ever heard of it? Israel doesn't allow dual-use materials. The thing is: A lot of life's necessities are dual use. See:

      According to the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories of the Israel Defense Forces, in May 2010, this included over 1.5 million litres of diesel fuel and gasoline, fruits and vegetables, wheat, sugar, meat, chicken and fish products, dairy products, animal feed, hygiene products, clothing and shoes.

      Specifically, the blockade helps fight terror.

      The blockade caused the terror. Like literally the rocket attacks started with the blockade; you can look at the timeline. Also I like how you now narrowed your definition to the blockade, because you can't justify anything happening to Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

      Only insofar as every border everywhere fits the definition. South African Apartheid—the thing people are trying to reference in order to demonize Israel—was intra-state apartheid.

      You need to learn more about East Jerusalem. I'll start: East Jerusalem Palestinians are systematically and routinely evicted from their homes to make way for Jewish settlements. It's much harder for Palestinians to gain construction permits than it is for Jews. Palestinian peaceful protests are repeatedly suppressed violently. It's almost impossible for a Palestinian in East Jerusalem to get Israeli citizenship (not that many want it, but the ones who do can't), meaning that they live under a regime they can't politically participate in. Should I go on? For more information, look up "Palestinian boy shoot in face by Israeli police". There's more than one story.

      Note how I didn't even touch on the West Bank; that's a whole different beast.

      Muslims and Arabs in the region have been terrorizing Jews since at least the late 1800s. They were never willing to accept any form of peace or coexistence.

      You mean anti-Jewish sentiment began to rise when the "let's take Arabs' lands for ourselves" movement began to gain steam? Say it ain't so. Also give me an example of that terrorization.

      • danhakimi@kbin.social
        11·
        1 year ago

        That's a metaphor, ever heard of it?

        It's a racially charged metaphor, and intentionally so. And it's a very, very weak one, except for that racism.

        The blockade caused the terror. Like literally the rocket attacks started with the blockade; you can look at the timeline.

        You're literally making up a lie for the purpose of blaming the victim, but luckily, it's easily falsifiable. Rocket fire began in 2001, the blockade began in 2007.

        Also I like how you now narrowed your definition to the blockade, because you can't justify anything happening to Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

        What are you talking about? I gave an example. Do you want me to go through the security basis for a dozen more regulations? Would that be a constructive use of my time, here?

        You mean anti-Jewish sentiment began to rise when the "let's take Arabs' lands for ourselves" movement began to gain steam? Say it ain't so. Also give me an example of that terrorization.

        Have you ever heard the term "victim blaming" before?

        Early Zionism was entirely peaceful. Zionists purchased land in Israel, and only settled portions of land where nobody was. They didn't displace any Arabs until the 40s, until after the Muftis broke bread with the Nazis, until after the Jews in the British mandate had been suffering under active Arab oppression and pogroms for decades.

        I'm sick of you people coming at me with this stupid fucking logic. Look it up, it'll take less than a minute to find a few of the early pogroms in the British Mandate. I'm not responsible for educating you.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
          11·
          1 year ago

          Rocket fire began in 2001, the blockade began in 2007.

          Sigh it's obvious that the second infifada doesn't count here. Do I need to state "rocket fire by Hamas-controlled Gaza" when we're obviously talking about Hamas-controlled Gaza?

          Look it up, it'll take less than a minute to find a few of the early pogroms in the British Mandate. I'm not responsible for educating you.

          How is the British mandate the late 1800s?

          Do you want me to go through the security basis for a dozen more regulations? Would that be a constructive use of my time, here?

          The security basis for… Shutting down peaceful protest, evicting Palestinians from their homes, not letting them participate

          Early Zionism was entirely peaceful. Zionists purchased land in Israel, and only settled portions of land where nobody was.

          There was no way Israel was going to turn out as anything other than what it is now. A land ruled by nationalist Jews was inevitably going to oppress the Muslims in it, and it did.