> Hamas was the first to cast the stone.

Palestine is a country under a brutal military occupation and progressive illegal colonisation that has been going on for 80 years. Before October 7, Israel had already killed many, many more civilians in Gaza than Hamas did in Israel with that attack.

When you know what father of Israel did during WW2 to fund the current Israel.

Uhg, too bad its not taught in school coz history is written by winners and you have to search for it yourself.

Yes Israel commits an ongoing genocide.

And I look at this only by lens of history.

It's not a country

There isn't really a single way to define a country. For background, I would recommend this video from the Map Men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nB688xBYdY

But following their conclusion: the thing that makes you a country is being recognized as one by other countries. Most of the world recognizes Palestine as a country (including 157 UN member states). Here is a map where the green countries recognize Palestine, and grey do not: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Palestin...

What are the Palestinians then?

Historically, Palestine has never been a country. The Romans captured Judea, and later expelled the Jews and renamed the province Syria Palaestina (after previous enemies of the Jews). After the Romans, many other empires held the land: the Arabs, Mamluks, Turks, British. But at no point was it a country. Even when the Egyptians and Jordanians captured Gaza and the West Bank, they didn't give independence to Palestine. Israel captured Gaza/West Bank. They gave full control to Gaza in 2005. So you could say Gaza is a country now.

Yes, that's the standard text, I know. (Just ignoring the arab movement since the 1880s to make it a country and the British promise to help with that).

But that wasn't my question. If Palestine isn't a country, then what are the Palestinians?

There are official old coins, newspapers, etc. with Palestine written on them. It has long been an entity.

Here’s a bit of history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

TL;DR has nothing to do with Palestine of today

Many countries disagree with that. However, virtually everyone agree that it is not Israeli territory.

oh nice, you are making us all sob with those tough words

> Palestine is a country under a brutal military occupation and progressive illegal colonisation that has been going on for 80 years.

If Mexico had started attacking the US across the border, what would the US do? I'm curious to hear what you think a country should do in this circumstance.

Are the US currently illegally occupying large parts of Mexico and progressively colonising it, displacing and oppressing the Mexican population?

And if that were the case, would you say that Mexico had started attacking the US across the border? Or would you say that the US are waging war against Mexico and Mexico is fighting back?

You have the timeline backwards. Palestinians attacked Jews first, then Jews occupied the invaders.

I disagree with this timeline (the Jews got there in the first place with the precise, declared intent of colonising somebody else's land. That's the whole point of Zionism).

But more in general, there's no point in following a tit-for-tat that goes back 80 years or more with the intent of finding "who was the first". Each event further down the chain completely reverses the assessment, and you can't base any solid reasoning on such grounds. What you have to look at is the big picture: who is occupying someone else's territory? Who is oppressing the other with overwhelming force? Which side keeps taking and which keeps losing?

> the Jews got there in the first place with the precise, declared intent of colonising somebody else's land. That's the whole point of Zionism

Yes, but they were doing it by legally purchasing land, not through violent displacement. Arabs then rioted against Jewish communities, and that started the cycle of violence.

And note how this push for Zionism coincides with a global expansion of antisemitism after WWI. The only place Jews could find reliable support was among their people and protected by the British who were bound to uphold the Barfour declaration.

> What you have to look at is the big picture: who is occupying someone else's territory?

But if you ignore the history, you can't actually determine whose territory it is can you? Jews purchased land from Arabs, Arabs repeatedly started conflicts with them and Jews repeatedly beat them back. Losers in a conflict lose territory, and the armistice following Israel's founding drew the expanded lines.

As for the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank today, I agree it's problematic, but what exactly Israel supposed to do when they keep getting attacked? They were attacked after the armistice with Jordan and Egypt, so once again, they didn't start anything.

If Mexico repeatedly attacked the US, they would do the same thing. Hamas continues to have over 70% support among Gazans, even now, and Hamas murders anyone who speaks against them.

> but they were doing it by legally purchasing land

This is false- the land they purchased was only 12% of what they claimed at the moment of independence. Besides, privately buying land doesn't give you any right to declare sovereignty over it- try that in your country.

> The only place Jews could find reliable support was among their people

Sucks for them, but absolutely can't be used to justify a crime against a third party- the Palestinians.

> Jews purchased land from Arabs, Arabs repeatedly started conflicts with them and Jews repeatedly beat them back

This is entirely false and even a cursory reading of actual history (not the passively repeated Zionist propaganda points that you're exposing here) would change your mind.

> As for the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank today, I agree it's problematic, but what exactly Israel supposed to do when they keep getting attacked?

First of all they should not occupy any territory that doesn't belong to them, because that makes the attacks entirely reasonable and justified.

  Are the US currently illegally occupying large parts of Mexico

This comment would depress a highschool history teacher.

Yeah, the annexation of Texas. Which is similar to Israel / Palestine in many ways.

The depressing thing is that you don't know that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed 178 years ago, and that territory can be legally ceded by means of peace treaties. The part of Palestine that is considered illegally occupied is the part that lies beyond the 1949 armistice borders and has never been legally ceded to Israel by any treaty.

> Israel had already killed many, many more civilians in Gaza than Hamas did in Israel with that attack.

And how does it justify Hamas killing unarmed civilians? How does it justify Hamas lobbing grenades at Nepali students?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0kllzqk1vo

That's not what I am answering to, but the assertion "Hamas threw the first stone". No it didn't.

> Hamas was insane to think that Bibi would NOT BOMB the Gaza in retaliation.

My theory is that they knew this would happen and they did it because they knew it would garner support (which it did) and they also knew they had nothing to lose because this is what would have happened in the long-term anyway. They chose between a quick death and a slow death. Unfortunately, everyone else who originally chose them to protect them didn't get to choose. I doubt most would have voted for this if they had that choice.

Let's also not forget that Hamas still exists and is regaining numbers and territory: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98g1klxnpxo

You can't just stamp out a guerilla resistance the way Israel have tried to do. I suspect Hamas reckoned that a well-timed short term sacrifice would turn global opinion against Israel.

Well they still have the full support of the usa government, and I'm pretty sure that even democrats would still keep supporting Israel.

So what did they really lost? Do they even care that some Europeans don't like them ? Europeans are not the one who sell them 99% of their weapons.

Europe is extremely important to Israel. Their legitimacy stems from seeing themselves as European. Their loss of support from Europe is very bad in the long term.

Yes, US is supporting them to. They are losing from both sides, though. They may have part of the remaining generation in power and that's it.

The US is no longer a reliable partner. Once the current administration is gone the likelihood of US support is less than guaranteed. Even with this administration in place support is less than guaranteed. All it takes is the right moment to set off a tantrum and friends become enemies. Israel really doesn't have allies so much as accomplices and that type of friend only sticks around when it helps them.

It's notable that the US right wing have turned against Israel.

Witness Tucker Carlson dismantling Huckabee, and Zionist ideology, recently.

Where it ends up, no one knows. But this is different.

Trump is as far right as you can go and still support Israel. If America goes further to Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes land Jews will wonder why they let so much evil be done in their name by the Israeli government.

Carlson has never been that strongly pro-Israel as I understand it. He's carefully toed a line that maintains a solid right-wing fanbase. See e.g. this [0] from 2012 and this [1] from 2019.

[0] https://www.politico.com/media/story/2012/01/tucker-carlson-...

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/archbishop-pelosi-says-walls...

Of course that was just one example. But Carlson has definitely let loose since his Fox News days and, if you're aware of what's going on, you'll know that there is a significant section of the US right wing now that is anti-Israel. This isn't in doubt.

On the flip side, I'm not saying they are pro-Palestine, it is definitely an America First agenda. However, the unified front on Israel is finally broken. For the best, I'd say.

I’m not sure most non-Europeans care what Europeans think about them. :)

Now that the world has knowingly seen a genocide and done virtually nothing, and that the US continues to openly support Israel, I think this was a massive victory for Israel.

The genocide and ethnic cleansing Israel is committing is the best recruitment campaign for Hamas.

Most people in Gaza now aren't old enough to have voted for Hamas. Median age is estimated to be under 20.

Doesn't matter, there is always going to be resistance against the occupation anyway, if it isn't called "Hamas" its going to be called something else. This is not an enemy they can ever defeat and people either know what that means or are too afraid to think that far. You just can't have other peoples land, you just can't, not without vaporizing (literally [1]) the people you took it from.

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/2/10/israel-used-wea...

Yes no doubt, but I still feel as though it's important to dispel the "they voted for this" myth because it comes up a lot — it may still be true if an election was held today, but we can't know because the people in Palestine haven't voted for decades. When we're talking about who's suffering there, it's primarily young people who've had no voice in anything for their entire lives.

What in actuality was happening long-term is the increasing integration and cooperation of Gazans with Israel, reduction of tensions and hopes for eventual peace. Which is an existencial threat to Hamas.

Is that the same cooperation seen in the West Bank where Israel keeps sending settlers and make Palestine land smaller and smaller every single year?

I highly recommend to watch the Oscar winning movie “no other land”, for anyone that thinks that Israel would just let them leave in peace

Israeli settlers are despicable, but even in current government those who support them are minority freaks(who Hamas has empowered very much after October 7th).

Also it is a two way street, there is also a problem of Palestinian settlers, which while I do want to highlight is separate and in no way justifies the Israeli ones, is still a real problem and harnesses a lot of bad publicity when Israel destroys said illegal settlements.

Don't make things up. Palestinians cannot settle their own land. The Israelis are the only ones settling, i.e., colonizing.

> those who support them are minority freaks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht

Sure, they only have several ministers in the government, Likud politicians show up at settler events, they keep changing the laws to be more in favor of settlers, etc etc...

As for Palestinian settlers, where would those even be?

What? Settlers are totally tolerated and supported by the state. Look at Ariel, it is a fully established town settled almost 50 years ago with a university that operates in every practical way as part of Israel. If you think the government doesn't support them, what would support look like?

> even in current government those who support them are minority freaks

Well, and the Minister of National Security, a settler himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir

Gaza has been under a near-total naval blockade since 2007 (which is an act of war BTW). Any meaningful "reduction of tensions" would have included lifting that.

That is an obvious lie, but also, even if it were true, who cares? It doesn't really matter what the UN thinks about anything.

That's not a counterpoint to what I said.

Uh, was this happening 1967-87? Because they were sure more integrated before the First Intifada

I also almost believe that top echelons of Israeli intelligence knew about the upcoming attack, but they didn't expect THAT many fatalities and that Hamas were going to take hostages alive.

That's interesting. It could be. Maybe some day we'll find out.

A never ending conflict is what maintain the Likoud in power. This far right party and government has no interest in peace and is insulting the memory of the people who died in the holocaust.

>My theory is that they knew this would happen and they did it because they knew it would garner support (which it did) and they also knew they had nothing to lose because this is what would have happened in the long-term anyway. They chose between a quick death and a slow death. Unfortunately, everyone else who originally chose them to protect them didn't get to choose. I doubt most would have voted for this if they had that choice.

Maybe. I actually think they didnt expect to be so successful also.

> They chose between a quick death and a slow death.

It continues to be strange to me that "not choosing death" was apparently never an option.

Reminds me of Tiananmen square in regard to how stubbornly westerners insist that NOTHING happened in Gaza before 7/23

The point isn't that nothing happened, it is that nothing _that justifies_ the attack happened.

It was the point.

> - Hamas was the first to cast the stone.

Saying that it was Hamas who casted the first stone on 7 oct, is basically saying nothing happened before. Which is plain wrong. It's the consequence of decades of oppression, crimes, and unstopping massacre from the colonial occupier.

If you're going back decades, then Palestinians started started multiple civil wars against Jews before the founding of Israel. It's almost as if the Jews knew they couldn't peacefully coexist with most Palestinians on the same land.

That is simply wrong. Palestinians were first attacked by the British, supporting the Zionists, in the 1930s. Then, in 1947, during plan Dalet, Israel attacked Palestine and the surrounding Arab states.

Before that, of course, they colonized Palestine under the shield of the British empire.

An easier way to disarm this argument is: Why did the Zionists come and displace the Palestinians? And who would respond peacefully if you try to displace them?

No, Arab riots targeted Jewish communities starting in the 1920s through the 1930s. Up through the 1930s, Jewish immigration and land acquisition was by purchase of land, and the areas they occupied were sparsely populated. This talk of "colonization" is ahistorical propaganda.

And this also exposes the falsehood behind your question of why Zionists "displaced" Palestinians. If you don't consider purchasing land to be legal and ethical acquisition, then I don't know what to tell you. This is not what colonial displacement looks like.

Finally, as for why they were immigrating there, why not ask yourself what was happening to Jews throughout the world from 1915 up through the 1940s.

That's rich. If "talk of colonization" is propaganda, why did Herzl write about "important experiments in colonization" in Palestine? and why did Jabotinsky say "Zionism is a colonization adventure"? Why did Max Nordau say: "the existing and promising beginnings of a Jewish colonization shall be looked after and maintained till the movement will be possible on a large scale"?

Why would the founders of Zionism engage in "ahistorical propaganda" against themselves?

Zionism is one of the most brutal examples of colonialism ever, and the founders of Zionism don't disagree. Zionists are equivalent to Nazis in their treatment of the "other" and their belief in a pure ethnostate, the consequences of these beliefs are exactly the same. And young people are finally waking up to this.

Shame on you, you zionist pig.

I never mentioned jews and the point remains : It is untrue to say that Hamas started everything on 7th of oct and it is untrue to say that they were the first.

Stop diverting attention from the causes of what happened.

Nothing justifies the attack on civilians because collective punishment is a war crime and a crime against humanity.

The military objectives were entirely justified though (taking out IDF bases, attempting to capture IDF soldiers, and attempting to liberate several-thousand Palestinians being held by Israel)

Of the 6000 people from Gaza who entered Israel that day, at most 12% were responsible for one of the 800 civilian casualties in Israel. If you consider that the minority who decided to target civilians were likely responsible for targeting multiple civilians, and that some number (at least 4 who are known) of those deaths resulted from the actions of the IDF, it's entirely possible fewer than 8% of insurgents targeted and killed civilians.

All told, fewer civilians were killed proportionately than have been killed in Israel's response.

What type of resistance would you have recommended Palestinians engage in prior to October 7? They tried non-violent resistance and were met with lethal force.

Attacking the people who stole your land and murdered your family is justified in my book. I don't think I'm alone, very few people globally support Israel.

By the wide definition of of "the people who stole your land" that you're using (meaning, no Hamas person checked who stole what land), almost everyone on earth is someone who stole someone's land. If not now, than in the previous generation. In my case as an Israeli, ~4 generations ago. In your case? I don't know. Either the people your family stole the land from X years ago have the right to attack you, or your family just managed to kill all of them years ago so there's no one to demand the land back.

> By the wide definition of of "the people who stole your land" that you're using (meaning, no Hamas person checked who stole what land), almost everyone on earth is someone who stole someone's land. If not now, than in the previous generation. In my case as an Israeli, ~4 generations ago.

Thanks for saying that (not sarcasm, I mean it). Peace can only start when both sides admit they’ve done wrong too.

Would you say both sides did wrong with the Nazis vs Jews? This is an identical situation (possibly worse since the Zionists actively invaded Palestine to commit genocide).

It doesn't even need to involve a real wrongdoing, even a Holocaust survivor might admit that Jews being a socially separate group in Europe may have contributed to the Nazis scapegoating them (just stating a widely accepted fact, not blaming the victims). A 100% victim mindset is rarely helpful.

It is not identical, and it not even similar situation. You are sick in your head to compare the killing of 6 million people, unarmed, in gas chambers, with two nations that have a strong link to a place fighting over the land. The Jews never had anything against Germany - on the contrary, they wanted to integrate in it. Jews have real a historical connection to the land that even a Quran believer cannot deny, not to mention an archeologist.

Your failure to see things through the eyes of the other side is exactly the kind of thing that makes the Middle East a terrible place to live in.

The power differential between Zionists and Palestinians is much more extreme than Nazis and Jews. Zionists also have incredible control over my country (the US) than the Nazis ever did. In the 21st century Zionism is much worse than Nazism (which isn't even around any more in a significant way).

No, the Nazis had an army that took over all of Europe and some of Africa. The Jews had no weapons at all. Palestinians have weapons, they receive support in military training, and often coordinated their attacks with other armies from the countries surrounding Israel.

The "influence over the US" metric is ridiculous, the US was an enemy of the Nazis, of course they didn't have control over it. It's like saying the Nazis never had such a strong influence over Iran as the Palestinians do.

Prior to WWII the Jews were so powerful that the Rothschilds were able to get the UK to give them Palestine. The Balfour Agreement is very well documented. The Palestinians can't even return to their homes stolen from them during the Nakba.

I'm indigenous like the Palestinians (who also did not steal anyone's land). Zionism was created in the late 1800s with the mission to steal land and ethnically cleanse Palestine. These are concrete and well documented actions that justify Hamas's resistance.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you're not seem to be interested in learning, but in case someone else reads our thread: Zionism wasn't created with the mission of stealing land and/or ethnically cleansing Palestine. That's a lie. It was created to find a home for the Jewish people. Until the early 1900s, a few places on Earth were considered. Unfortunately none was completely empty of other humans. Mandatory Palestine was chosen because of the strong link Jews have to it (and history, backed by countless archeological items). During the 1900s, Zionist have tried, and succeeded at times, to work together with the Palestinian community. The vast majority of the founding Zionist texts are very clear about the need to work together with, respect and share the land with the current local people living on it.

My family lost more than 20 people in the Holocaust, and I would never claim it justifies something like killing 400 Germans in a music festival. Claiming that anything justifies Hamas' attack is something only a sick person could do.

Correct, I'm uninterested in hearing Zionist propaganda.

> Hamas was the first to cast the stone.

That is ignoring many decades of history.

How far back do you want to go? Jacob and Esau?

Why are you asking a ridiculous question?

To have a useful and productive discussion about the modern conflict, it's pretty obvious that we don't need to go back to Jacob and Esau, but to "Zionism" and it's enabler "European - specifically British and French - colonialism."

The muslims arent native to the land though. They are just colonizers.

There was never a process where Arab or Muslim conquerors completely replaced the native population, they just added to it. Conversion and Arabization gradually transformed the existing population’s identity. If descent from conquerors means colonizer, then virtually no population on earth is non-colonial. Arabs in Palestine, Normans in England, Turks in Anatolia, Romans everywhere…

Colonizer status is typically attached to an event and structure, not inherited indefinitely.

Interesting perspective. But does that mean that Taylor Swift is just as native as Sitting Bull? Or are descendants of aboriginal Americans more entitled to the land?

Under the most common frameworks for assessing claims about "indigenous status" or "land entitlement", length of continuous inhabitation and external support for migration are big factors. Considering Sitting Bull's lineage likely migrated unsupported from other regimes and his lineage inhabited North America for much longer, it's unlikely Taylor Swift would be considered "just as native." Whether descendants of Sitting Bull are specifically entitled to land is a matter of ongoing legal and cultural dispute.

They are native and converted to islam

1881 would be enough.

- Hamas is well-funded by Israel (to false flag?).

It's not a secret. It started in the 80s and lasted until they won the election in 2005. It's not a conspiracy theory, this is History. Official History everyone one agrees on, even israel and Hamas themselves.

> Hamas was the first to cast the stone.

HAMAS is an entity formed by refugees having fled the nakba and been stored on top of each other in an open air prison.

> Israel ALWAYS gonna retaliate with non proportional force when it comes to security of its citizens.

This is the logic of conflicts in the middle east and many or probably most parts of the world. If you don't retaliate hard and defend yourself thoroughly, it is seen as weakness. Not much more sophisticated than how bullying works.

Sounds as if you're defending genocide style killing civilians.

Israel was attacked, you are mixing that up.

Replying to a genocide terror attack by starting to genocide kill civilians in the area the terrorists came from, is wrong.

But that's what you're apparently supporting, looking at how you're writing.

Plus you are misrepresenting what I said.