Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Raze]

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I simply think the Palestinians should have adapted to the changing times and evolved instead of glorifying martyrdom and doing nothing constructive. Living with people like that is impossible; it's a sure war.

Your opinion is that Israel should bow to these mentally ill people; mine is that they shouldn't.

The claim that Palestinians have “done nothing constructive” and failed to adapt to modern realities is historically false. Since the 1980s, there has been a clear and consistent shift in Palestinian political strategy, particularly through the PLO’s formal acceptance of a two-state solution in 1988 — effectively recognizing Israel within its 1948 borders and accepting the principle of partition. This was a major ideological and political adaptation, one that directly reversed earlier positions and acknowledged the irreversible realities created by Israel’s existence.

The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, endorsed by all 22 members of the Arab League, offered Israel full normalization in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders and a just resolution for Palestinian refugees. This was a massive concession and an unprecedented regional consensus — yet Israel did not accept it. Nor did it use it as a basis for negotiations. Instead, successive Israeli governments have expanded settlements in the West Bank — which are illegal under international law — and entrenched an occupation that undermines the viability of a future Palestinian state. This is the opposite of good-faith engagement.

Therefore, to argue that Palestinians have refused to adapt or seek peace while ignoring these peace overtures is dishonest. Worse, it flips the moral script by blaming the weaker party for the impasse while exonerating the stronger one, even as that stronger party continues to expand its control over the land in defiance of the very principle of partition.

Using the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan to justify the current occupation or Israel’s control over the entire territory is historically and logically incoherent. If rejection of partition is the problem, then Palestinians should be praised — not punished — for later accepting partition in the form of the two-state solution. Instead, what we observe is a reversal of standards: when Palestinians rejected partition in 1947, they were blamed; when they later accepted it, they were ignored or undermined.

Meanwhile, Israel itself has repeatedly undermined partition in practice. Current Israeli leadership — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ministers in his government — have explicitly rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, even in principle. Several have said openly that they support full Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, and laws have been passed to support settlement expansion. So if partition is supposed to be the moral and political litmus test, then Israel’s rejection of it today should discredit its current actions even more strongly than Palestinian rejection nearly 80 years ago. That it doesn’t — in the speaker's framework — reveals blatant hypocrisy.

Israel’s ongoing settlement construction in the West Bank is the clearest material evidence of its rejection of a viable Palestinian state. The settlements fragment Palestinian territory into disconnected enclaves, making statehood physically impossible. These policies are not passive or reactive; they are deliberate and long-term strategies to alter the facts on the ground.

In this light, it’s absurd to say “Palestinians should just adapt” — they have tried adaptation through diplomacy, recognition of Israel, nonviolent resistance, participation in international legal institutions — all of which have either been dismissed or punished. Adaptation is not unilateral; it requires a counterpart willing to engage. If Israel responds to Palestinian concessions with land theft, siege, and rejectionism, then it's clear who is sabotaging coexistence.

Furthermore, the person shows no real intellectual humility. They are confronted with specific, well-reasoned criticisms, including corrected historical claims and ethical concerns, but they ignore or sidestep them. This is a hallmark of poor intellectual integrity. Instead of adjusting their view in light of new information, they double down on previous beliefs, reinforcing them with insults, stereotypes, and unsubstantiated claims. Their thinking lacks nuance, complexity, and curiosity—traits that define higher-level critical thinking.

The person’s responses suggest a limited capacity for critical thinking, especially in relation to historical context, ethical reasoning, and political analysis. They rely heavily on emotional appeals, ad hominem attacks, and binary reasoning ("evolved vs. backward," "mentally ill vs. rational"). This indicates a low tolerance for ambiguity and an inability to process complex, multifaceted realities.

Instead of analyzing the power dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they default to broad generalizations about religious identity, cultural value, and racial superiority. These are not the signs of a well-informed, thoughtful individual engaging in genuine discussion. They are markers of someone more interested in moral posturing and identity-based antagonism than in understanding or resolving real-world problems.

No, they should not be proud of their performance in this conversation. They have failed to demonstrate factual understanding, moral seriousness, or intellectual honesty. Their worldview is built on resentment, prejudice, and historical distortion. Pride in such a position reflects not confidence in truth, but comfort in ignorance. If anything, this conversation should serve as a wake-up call—a mirror reflecting their need for growth, not validation.

They may believe they are participating in a serious political debate, but their approach lacks the discipline, humility, and rigor required for meaningful dialogue. Instead of developing informed, empathetic views grounded in reality and reason, they rely on inflammatory rhetoric and shallow narratives of strength and superiority. That is not critical thinking—it is reactionary bias masquerading as insight.

Edited Friday at 05:58 PM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, endorsed by all 22 members of the Arab League, offered Israel full normalization in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders and a just resolution for Palestinian refugees

Your posts are too long and angry. We all have attention deficit disorder here, keep that in mind.

Regarding the peace proposal, it included the right of return. 700,000 people left during the Nakba, and around 6 million want to return. Do you think that's realistic? It's just impossible. Besides, Hamas and other groups rejected it completely.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

They may believe they are participating in a serious political debate, but their approach lacks the discipline, humility, and rigor required for meaningful dialogue. Instead of developing informed, empathetic views grounded in reality and reason, they rely on inflammatory rhetoric and shallow narratives of strength and superiority. That is not critical thinking—it is reactionary bias masquerading as insight

Sure. Your whiny, blaming view may strike you as morally superior, on the side of the victims abused by the abusive rich.

But the world functions through adaptation, not resentment and crying. Let the Palestinians demonstrate their humaneness, let them produce high-quality leaders, not hate-filled, swindling sons of bitches living in hotels in Qatar, and then they will achieve things. 

This is a real Palestinian leader 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

Edited Friday at 06:55 PM by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure. Your whiny, blaming view may strike you as morally superior, on the side of the victims abused by the abusive rich.

But the world functions through adaptation, not resentment and crying. Let the Palestinians demonstrate their humaneness, let them produce high-quality leaders, not hate-filled, swindling sons of bitches living in hotels in Qatar, and then they will achieve things. 

The reply fails to meaningfully counter the detailed, historically grounded points presented. Instead of addressing specific examples of Palestinian adaptation — such as the PLO's 1988 acceptance of a two-state solution or the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative — the speaker deflects with ad hominem remarks, emotional dismissal, and generalizations. Calling the argument "too long and angry" is a rhetorical dodge, not a rebuttal.

Their claim that the peace initiative is “impossible” due to the right of return misrepresents it. The proposal called for a “just solution” — deliberately open to negotiation. Past talks explored limited return, compensation, and resettlement. Claiming Hamas's rejection negates the initiative ignores that the PLO and Palestinian Authority accepted it, and paints all Palestinians with a broad, inaccurate brush. Hamas’s 2017 charter (or political document) marked a significant shift in its stance and did indirectly accept the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but without explicitly recognizing Israel. So, saying “Hamas rejected the peace initiative completely” is misleading, especially when presented as the sole reason to dismiss Palestinian political evolution. All while hypocritically ignoring the Israeli dismissals of partition that were pointed out to them — in order to continue to pin the entirety of blame on one side. 

Intellectually, the speaker avoids complexity and context, showing little critical thinking. Dismissing long arguments and relying on surface-level points suggests a concrete, adolescent level of reasoning — unwilling to engage with moral or historical nuance.

In summary, their reply is factually weak, morally shallow, and intellectually simplistic. It avoids serious engagement and relies on emotional rhetoric over evidence or ethical reasoning.

Edited Friday at 07:07 PM by Raze

[Raze]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

 This is a real Palestinian leader 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

And these are real Jewish intellectuals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkPTwB58FpI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mhCEXpm1hA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5CuwCrEJEo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00-Wr-HxZk4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdfzC5NNAew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU5C93PqGyY

 

Edited Friday at 08:07 PM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

10 minutes ago, Raze said:

And these are real Jewish intellectuals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkPTwB58FpI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mhCEXpm1hA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5CuwCrEJEo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00-Wr-HxZk4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdfzC5NNAew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU5C93PqGyY

 

I saw the first one, and the guy says what's happening is that people are being exterminated because they're considered subhuman. Why do you make me listen to this nonsense? Are you really that dumb? Don't you realize they're fighting radical Islamism,. something extremely serious? Seriously, those people are retarded. Like you with your ChatGPT judgements. Posting that is mentally retarded, don't you see? Well, of course not.

Edited Friday at 08:14 PM by Breakingthewall

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Your posts are too long and angry. We all have attention deficit disorder here, keep that in mind.

Regarding the peace proposal, it included the right of return. 700,000 people left during the Nakba, and around 6 million want to return. Do you think that's realistic? It's just impossible. Besides, Hamas and other groups rejected it completely.

It's the right of return which is international law

But Jews can "return" after 3,000 years?
 

Your brain is completely cooked off Zionist drugs dude. You keep doubling down instead of admitting you got played

[Twentyfirst]

@zazen He is part of the people running a colony for the US and can't admit it

Colonial and white supremacist. He isn't even white but Jewish. Very confused

He doesn't know that the West never changes and it's only a matter of time until they scapegoat the Jews just like they have for thousands of years

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

It's the right of return which is international law

But Jews can "return" after 3,000 years?
 

Your brain is completely cooked off Zionist drugs dude. You keep doubling down instead of admitting you got played

Because the Jews came to a depopulated area to bring prosperity and development, not to an overpopulated area with the idea of exterminating those living there.

No one believes the Palestinians' peace plans; it's obvious they're maneuvers to get closer to their goal, which is to expel the Jews. It bothers you greatly that the Jews don't allow themselves to be sodomized. According to you, they should allow it.

[Raze]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I saw the first one, and the guy says what's happening is that people are being exterminated because they're considered subhuman. Why do you make me listen to this nonsense? Are you really that dumb? Don't you realize they're fighting radical Islamism,. something extremely serious? Seriously, those people are retarded. Like you with your ChatGPT judgements. Posting that is mentally retarded, don't you see? Well, of course not.

The claim that Israel is simply “fighting radical Islamism” in Gaza, and that accusations of systemic harm to civilians or exterminatory intent are “nonsense,” is not only reductive but contradicted by a broader set of historical facts and official policies. Israel’s long-term strategy in relation to Palestinian political factions complicates the idea that its current actions are solely or even primarily about fighting radical Islamism. There is substantial evidence that Israel has, at various points, contributed to the strengthening of Islamist groups like Hamas while simultaneously undermining more secular, diplomatic Palestinian entities like the Palestinian Authority (PA). This historical pattern calls into question the sincerity or singularity of the “war on Islamism” narrative.

For example, during the First Intifada in the late 1980s, Israeli authorities permitted and, in some views, encouraged the growth of Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO, which they regarded as a more threatening nationalist and secular movement. Hamas was allowed to register as a charitable organization, while PLO-affiliated groups faced more suppression. Later, even after Hamas had become an overtly militant and hostile organization, Israeli officials allowed Qatari funds to flow into Gaza, propping up Hamas's rule. In 2019, Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich reportedly called Hamas “an asset,” arguing that a weakened PA and a contained Hamas would prevent the emergence of a unified Palestinian political front—thereby maintaining Israel’s strategic upper hand. These choices are clearly inconsistent with a narrative that frames Hamas solely as an existential threat Israel has always sought to eliminate.

Moreover, the idea that Israel’s conduct in Gaza targets only Hamas or other radical Islamists is not supported by the outcomes of military operations or public statements by some Israeli officials. In multiple military campaigns—especially during the 2023–2024 war—Israel has been accused of using disproportionate force in densely populated areas, resulting in high civilian casualties, the destruction of residential infrastructure, and a humanitarian crisis. Independent investigations and reports from organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the United Nations have documented potential war crimes, including attacks that appear indiscriminate or punitive in nature. There are also statements by senior Israeli politicians and military leaders that suggest a view of the population of Gaza not merely as passive victims of Hamas but as complicit or less than fully human—language that echoes dehumanization and collective punishment.

Taken together, these facts strongly contradict the oversimplified claim that Israel’s conduct in Gaza is strictly a fight against radical Islamism. The reality is more complex: a mixture of security concerns, political strategy, and ideological objectives has shaped Israeli policy. That includes undermining Palestinian political unity, tolerating or indirectly supporting Hamas when convenient, and carrying out military actions that have devastated the civilian population.

If someone claims to have studied the Israel-Palestine conflict deeply and to be committed to intellectual and moral development, but dismisses humanitarian concerns, uses dehumanizing language, and presents a one-sided, factually inconsistent narrative, it suggests serious deficiencies in both critical thinking and moral maturity. Their approach indicates that their study may have been biased and superficial, focused more on reinforcing beliefs than seeking truth. Lashing out with insults and offensive language strongly suggests an inability or unwillingness to effectively counter the detailed, evidence-based claims made against them. This defensive reaction often indicates frustration rooted in intellectual insecurity or a lack of confidence in one’s own arguments. It reveals a tendency to prioritize emotional outbursts over reasoned discourse, which undermines their credibility and signals limited critical thinking skills. Such behavior also points to a difficulty in managing cognitive dissonance and engaging constructively with opposing viewpoints, reflecting a barrier to intellectual growth and meaningful dialogue.

Edited Friday at 08:38 PM by Raze

[Twentyfirst]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Because the Jews came to a depopulated area to bring prosperity and development, not to an overpopulated area with the idea of exterminating those living there.

No one believes the Palestinians' peace plans; it's obvious they're maneuvers to get closer to their goal, which is to expel the Jews. It bothers you greatly that the Jews don't allow themselves to be sodomized. According to you, they should allow it.

I can't reply to most of what you say since it's so out of touch with reality

How is the Jews leaving and going to Europe getting sodomized? 

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze

49 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

 

In Gaza, a radical Islamist group has been in power for 20 years, brainwashing its inhabitants from childhood with ideas of hatred and slaughter as essential human values.

This philosophy has become widespread and makes coexistence between Israel and Gaza completely impossible.

Gaza has an enormous population growth, a pressure pot of hatred and resentment that grows every day.

They gave Israel the excuse with 7Oct, which was surely allowed by the IDF, and now Israel is cleaning up that infection, causing the fewest possible deaths, which is a large number of deaths.

Who is to blame? I don't know. I know that a pressure pot of hatred that feeds on and incites children to immolate themselves is not viable and must be restarted, and the radical islamist erased. 

In my opinion the IDF should have continued the war until Hamas was eliminated, because what they've done is surrender and release 2,000 Hamas militants It's a victory for Hamas, which says yes to everything and will return to its own thing, which is death.

Edited Friday at 09:06 PM by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze

In Gaza, a radical Islamist group has been in power for 20 years, brainwashing its inhabitants from childhood with ideas of hatred and slaughter as essential human values.

This philosophy has become widespread and makes coexistence between Israel and Gaza completely impossible.

Gaza has an enormous population growth, a pressure pot of hatred and resentment that grows every day.

They gave Israel the excuse with 7Oct, which was surely allowed by the IDF, and now Israel is cleaning up that infection, causing the fewest possible deaths, which is a large number of deaths.

Who is to blame? I don't know. I know that a pressure pot of hatred that feeds on and incites children to immolate themselves is not viable and must be restarted, and the radical islamist erased. 

In my opinion the IDF should have continued the war until Hamas was eliminated, because what they've done is surrender and release 2,000 Hamas militants It's a victory for Hamas, which says yes to everything and will return to its own thing, which is death.

The claim that Gaza's population has been "brainwashed from childhood with ideas of hatred and slaughter as essential human values" is not just misleading — it's a textbook case of projection masquerading as moral clarity. The 2004 JWeekly article debunks sensationalist Western and Israeli media narratives that falsely portray Palestinian children as being raised en masse to become suicide bombers. The article points out that claims of "incitement" were often grossly exaggerated, manipulated, or based on isolated anecdotes presented without context. But of course, for someone clinging to an image of Gaza as a hive of pure hatred, nuance is not only inconvenient — it’s incompatible with the worldview.

Moreover, the 2013 NPR report on the U.S.-funded study analyzing Israeli and Palestinian textbooks shatters the premise of a uniquely hateful Palestinian curriculum. The study found that both Israeli and Palestinian educational systems fail to present each other's narratives accurately. There’s little empathy on either side, but the idea that Palestinian children are uniquely radicalized while Israeli youth are raised on pacifism and rainbows is fantasy-level delusion. In fact, The Guardian’s 2011 report documents rising levels of racism in Israeli schools, including explicit anti-Arab sentiment among both students and educators. But, predictably, critics like the one quoted turn a blind eye to this, reserving moral outrage exclusively for the "Other."

If "brainwashing" is truly your concern, it's worth asking why you're silent about one side's erasure of Palestinian history and growing ethno-nationalism. But then again, that would require intellectual consistency — a resource seemingly in short supply.

One of the more perversely surreal claims is that Israel is "cleaning up that infection" while "causing the fewest possible deaths." Aside from the nauseating biological metaphor — describing over 2 million people as a disease — this is a spectacular feat of self-deception. According to the December 2024 Human Rights Watch report, Israel’s actions in Gaza involve systematic deprivation of food, water, electricity, and medicine to civilians — in direct violation of international humanitarian law. The report explicitly states that these are not collateral consequences but deliberate policies: the use of starvation as a weapon of war. If this is someone's idea of restraint, one shudders to imagine what excess would look like.

Similarly, the 2024 Amnesty International report documents numerous instances of indiscriminate bombing, targeting of civilian infrastructure, and mass displacement. One detailed case involves the bombing of a refugee shelter, killing dozens of civilians without any identified military target. When entire neighborhoods are flattened, medical convoys are bombed, and humanitarian aid is blocked, only the most ideologically blinkered would describe it as “minimizing casualties.”

But this is the problem with people who reduce ethics to loyalty tests: if Israel does it, it must be “necessary,” no matter how brutal. If Palestinians die, it must be their own fault for being born in the wrong zip code. It’s not analysis — it’s apologia dressed up as moral clarity.

The belief that the IDF should have "continued the war until Hamas was eliminated" is a military fantasy — the kind that could only be held by someone whose understanding of counterinsurgency is based on action movies and Twitter threads. According to the RAND Corporation's study "How Terrorist Groups End", only 7% of terrorist organizations are defeated through military force. The most successful strategies involve political integration or robust intelligence and law enforcement operations, not carpet bombing or siege warfare.

Hamas is more than just a militia — it is also a governing body, a provider of social services, and, for many Gazans, a symbol of resistance to a brutal occupation. Even if the IDF were to dismantle Hamas’s military wing (at great human cost), the ideology — and more dangerously, the grievances that fuel it — would persist. Waging total war to “eliminate” Hamas without addressing the underlying occupation, economic blockade, and daily humiliations endured by Palestinians is like trying to kill a plant by clipping the leaves.

The blind faith in total war as a path to peace is not only strategically illiterate but also morally bankrupt. It elevates military annihilation as a substitute for diplomacy, while treating civilians as acceptable collateral damage. That is not counterterrorism — it's state-sanctioned vengeance.

The speaker's supposed concern about Hamas’s survival rings hollow in light of Haaretz’s 2025 report, which revealed that Israel replaced moderate Fatah prisoners with convicted Hamas operatives in a prisoner swap. Why? Because empowering Fatah — a more moderate, diplomatically engaged Palestinian faction — would undermine the “no partner for peace” narrative that justifies endless war. Supporting Israel under the pretense of opposing Hamas, while ignoring the fact that Israeli policy often strengthens Hamas for strategic convenience, is intellectual malpractice.

This hypocrisy lays bare what’s really going on: Hamas is useful. It justifies war. It absolves Israel from making peace. And for people like the speaker, it simplifies the moral equation down to something they can understand: one side good, one side evil. Facts be damned.

What does this worldview say about the person holding it? Frankly, not much that flatters their intellect or ethics. Their grasp of geopolitics appears to extend no further than whichever pundit last yelled the loudest on cable news. Their understanding of military affairs is laughably shallow — they repeat the phrase “eliminate Hamas” like it’s a cheat code, oblivious to how such strategies consistently fail across modern history.

More disturbingly, the language used — “infection,” “pressure pot,” “restart Gaza,” “immolate themselves” — is dehumanizing in the extreme. It reflects a moral outlook that is at best indifferent to civilian life and at worst comfortable with collective punishment as policy. This is not the rhetoric of a principled observer — it is the language of someone who has become morally anesthetized, so long as the suffering is happening on the other side of the wall.

Such views should be treated with deep skepticism. They are not expressions of moral clarity or strategic insight — they are symptoms of ideological capture. And while everyone is entitled to their opinion, not all opinions are entitled to respect — especially when they whitewash war crimes, demonize civilians, and promote endless war as a viable path to peace.

The quoted analysis reflects a profoundly unserious and ethically compromised perspective — one that fails on factual, legal, strategic, and moral grounds. It misrepresents the nature of education in Gaza, falsely portrays Israel's conduct as restrained, clings to unrealistic military goals, and ignores Israel's own role in sustaining Hamas for political gain. The person advancing these arguments demonstrates a stunning lack of critical thinking, intellectual humility, and human empathy. If this is their idea of geopolitical analysis, they would be better off reading history books than writing manifestos.

In summary, the speaker exhibits the moral absolutism and binary reasoning typical of a younger developmental stage, but without the openness to learning that youth often allows. Unlike a child, who might outgrow simplistic thinking, this person clings to it — not out of innocence, but out of fear, dogma, or a need to protect a brittle identity rooted in conflict. 

Edited Friday at 11:17 PM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

23 minutes ago, Raze said:

he 2004 JWeekly article debunks sensationalist Western and Israeli media narratives that falsely portray Palestinian children as being raised en masse to become suicide bombers

Maybe you didn't know that Hamas got the power in 2005

23 minutes ago, Raze said:

The blind faith in total war as a path to peace is not only strategically illiterate but also morally bankrupt. It elevates military annihilation as a substitute for diplomacy, while treating civilians as acceptable collateral damage. That is not counterterrorism — it's state-sanctioned vengeance.

Ask the imperial Japanese to be diplomatic. Maybe they would insert a katana in your anus after burn alive your daughters in front you just for fun .

23 minutes ago, Raze said:

The claim that Gaza's population has been "brainwashed from childhood with ideas of hatred and slaughter as essential human values

 

The Story of Wafa al-Bass

Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Bass was a young Palestinian woman from the Jabalia refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. In 2004, when she was about 20 years old, she suffered severe burns over much of her body after a gas cylinder exploded in her home. Her injuries were so grave that local doctors in Gaza could not adequately treat her.

Through a humanitarian coordination channel, Israel granted her permission to cross the Erez checkpoint and receive advanced medical care at Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva — an Israeli hospital known for treating both Israelis and Palestinians. Doctors there saved her life after months of complex surgeries and skin grafts.

However, on June 20, 2005, something extraordinary and tragic happened. As she was returning to the same hospital for a follow-up appointment, Israeli security personnel at the Erez crossing noticed her behaving nervously during a routine check. When they examined her, they discovered approximately ten kilograms of explosives hidden in her underwear.

Her plan, as she later admitted during interrogation, was to detonate herself inside Soroka hospital, killing as many Israeli doctors and patients as possible — the very people who had previously saved her life.

The bomb failed to detonate because of a technical malfunction. Border guards surrounded her, and she began shouting, “I am not afraid to die. I came to become a martyr!”
She was arrested before she could activate the explosives.

During questioning, she explained that she had been recruited by members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a militant faction linked to Fatah. They allegedly convinced her that her suffering and disfigurement could be redeemed through martyrdom, turning her personal trauma into what they called a “holy mission.”

Her attempted attack shocked both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli doctors from Soroka expressed disbelief and heartbreak that someone they had saved could try to murder them. Many Palestinian commentators, however, presented her as a “victim of despair and manipulation.”

In 2005, Wafa al-Bass was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison by an Israeli court.
She served part of her sentence and was released in 2011 as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, in which over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners were freed in return for one Israeli soldier held by Hamas.

After her release, she gave several interviews in Gaza, at first expressing pride in her attempted mission. Later, she gave more ambiguous statements, sometimes describing her life as “a tragedy used by others.”

Analysis

The case of Wafa al-Bass became symbolic for both sides:

For Israelis, it illustrated the moral collapse of terrorism — turning even humanitarian aid into an opportunity for attack.

For Palestinians, it exposed how desperation, propaganda, and trauma can lead a young woman from victimhood to self-destruction.

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:33 PM by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

21 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe you didn't know that Hamas got the power in 2005

Ask the imperial Japanese to be diplomatic. Maybe they would insert a katana in your anus after burn alive your daughters in front you just for fun .

 

The Story of Wafa al-Bass

Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Bass was a young Palestinian woman from the Jabalia refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. In 2004, when she was about 20 years old, she suffered severe burns over much of her body after a gas cylinder exploded in her home. Her injuries were so grave that local doctors in Gaza could not adequately treat her.

Through a humanitarian coordination channel, Israel granted her permission to cross the Erez checkpoint and receive advanced medical care at Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva — an Israeli hospital known for treating both Israelis and Palestinians. Doctors there saved her life after months of complex surgeries and skin grafts.

However, on June 20, 2005, something extraordinary and tragic happened. As she was returning to the same hospital for a follow-up appointment, Israeli security personnel at the Erez crossing noticed her behaving nervously during a routine check. When they examined her, they discovered approximately ten kilograms of explosives hidden in her underwear.

Her plan, as she later admitted during interrogation, was to detonate herself inside Soroka hospital, killing as many Israeli doctors and patients as possible — the very people who had previously saved her life.

The bomb failed to detonate because of a technical malfunction. Border guards surrounded her, and she began shouting, “I am not afraid to die. I came to become a martyr!”
She was arrested before she could activate the explosives.

During questioning, she explained that she had been recruited by members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a militant faction linked to Fatah. They allegedly convinced her that her suffering and disfigurement could be redeemed through martyrdom, turning her personal trauma into what they called a “holy mission.”

Her attempted attack shocked both Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli doctors from Soroka expressed disbelief and heartbreak that someone they had saved could try to murder them. Many Palestinian commentators, however, presented her as a “victim of despair and manipulation.”

In 2005, Wafa al-Bass was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison by an Israeli court.
She served part of her sentence and was released in 2011 as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, in which over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners were freed in return for one Israeli soldier held by Hamas.

After her release, she gave several interviews in Gaza, at first expressing pride in her attempted mission. Later, she gave more ambiguous statements, sometimes describing her life as “a tragedy used by others.”

Analysis

The case of Wafa al-Bass became symbolic for both sides:

For Israelis, it illustrated the moral collapse of terrorism — turning even humanitarian aid into an opportunity for attack.

For Palestinians, it exposed how desperation, propaganda, and trauma can lead a young woman from victimhood to self-destruction.

 

 

The original rebuttal made a series of systematic, well-sourced arguments: that the portrayal of Palestinians as uniquely brainwashed is unsupported by comparative studies of Israeli and Palestinian education; that Israel’s conduct in Gaza violates international law; that “eliminating Hamas” is both strategically ineffective and morally disastrous; and that Israeli policy has long benefitted from Hamas’s continued existence.

None of these arguments are addressed.

Instead, the speaker offers a single, emotionally charged anecdote about a failed suicide bomber who received medical care in Israel and later attempted to carry out an attack. While the story of Wafa al-Bass is undeniably tragic and complex, the attempt to use it as a blanket indictment of Palestinian society is an egregious misuse of anecdote as argument. It’s a transparent attempt to derail a conversation about war crimes and systemic injustice by pointing to an individual act of violence—while ignoring the far broader, state-sanctioned violence occurring in parallel.

This one-sided invocation of Palestinian extremism becomes even more hypocritical when set against Israel’s ongoing support for settler violence, which the speaker wholly ignores. If the goal is to discuss moral degradation, incitement, and the glorification of violence, then the conversation must include the 2015 Duma arson attack, in which Israeli settlers firebombed a Palestinian home, killing an 18-month-old baby, Ali Dawabsheh, and fatally wounding his parents.

The response among segments of Israeli society was not universal condemnation. In fact, video footage later emerged of far-right Israelis at a wedding celebrating the attack—waving guns and stabbing a photo of the murdered toddler. This was not an isolated incident. Human rights organizations, including B’Tselem and Yesh Din, have extensively documented how the Israeli military routinely fails to prevent settler violence against Palestinians—and, in many cases, enables it.

In 2023 and 2024 alone, there was a surge in settler pogroms in the West Bank, with masked men attacking villages, torching homes, and shooting civilians while Israeli forces either stood by or actively participated. The U.S. State Department, the EU, and even former Israeli security officials have acknowledged the increase in settler terrorism, often perpetrated with impunity and ideological encouragement from members of Israel’s ruling coalition.

So when someone points to one horrific example of a Palestinian attempting to blow herself up and says, “this shows you what kind of people they are,” but simultaneously ignores decades of systematic Israeli settler violence, the double standard becomes indefensible. It is not moral clarity; it is selective outrage. It dehumanizes one side while sanitizing the other.

The speaker’s reply is laced with violent imagery: “inserting a katana,” “burn alive your daughters,” “restart Gaza,” “infection.” This language is not just morally grotesque—it mirrors the very rhetoric they claim to oppose. Describing a population as an “infection” that needs to be “cleaned” echoes genocidal frameworks used throughout history to justify ethnic cleansing. It is disturbingly close to the language used by extremists on both sides, who devalue human life in pursuit of ideological purity.

What the speaker fails to grasp—or intentionally ignores—is that violent extremism exists on both sides of the conflict, and both societies have elements that glorify it. If one is to condemn Wafa al-Bass (as one should), consistency demands equal condemnation of Israeli youth raised to sing genocidal songs at far-right marches, or settlers who believe it is divinely mandated to burn Palestinians alive.

The celebration of murder at the so-called “wedding of hate” is not a fringe moment—it is a symptom of a society with its own incitement problem. The Israeli government has repeatedly failed to prosecute such acts seriously. In fact, members of Israel’s current far-right coalition have publicly defended, funded, or incited settler violence. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, once said the Palestinian village of Huwara “should be wiped out.”

When someone condemns Palestinian violence as evidence of a failed society, while refusing to acknowledge the mirror image within their own favored side, it reflects a failure of intellectual honesty. The speaker clearly lacks any commitment to principled consistency. They cherry-pick data, rely on emotional appeals, and ignore systemic patterns that complicate their binary worldview.

Moreover, the refusal to engage with well-documented critiques—like Israel’s role in perpetuating Hamas, or its deliberate use of starvation as a weapon—shows a mind more interested in vindication than in truth. That’s not serious geopolitical thinking. It’s reactionary posturing wrapped in a flag.

The speaker’s reply is a textbook case of moral hypocrisy and ideological capture. They ignore every serious critique raised in the rebuttal, replace data with a single anecdote, use dehumanizing language to justify mass violence, and remain silent on the mountain of evidence documenting Israeli extremism and settler terrorism.

If they believe that the story of Wafa al-Bass proves Palestinians are inherently violent, what do they think the Duma firebombing says about Israelis? Why do they ignore Israeli schools where Arabs are described as “snakes” or “demons”? Why do they not cite the countless acts of brutality committed by settlers, often with state backing?

The speaker’s refusal to engage with specific, well-documented criticisms — and their lunge toward anecdotal sensationalism and grotesque metaphor — is not an accident. It’s a defense mechanism. When confronted with evidence that threatens the brittle scaffolding of their worldview, they don’t reevaluate their assumptions; they retreat into moral absolutism, cherry-picked horror stories, and emotional spectacle. This isn’t moral clarity — it’s intellectual cowardice dressed up as conviction.

Let’s call it what it is: a desperate, almost pitiful, attempt to protect a dogma too fragile to survive scrutiny. They avoid addressing specific points — like Israel’s documented war crimes, the systemic violence of its settler population, or the cynical political calculus behind propping up Hamas — not because they haven’t seen the evidence, but because engaging with it would force them to confront the reality that their moral narrative is soaked in hypocrisy. So instead, they lash out. They spew graphic, violent hypotheticals, invoke one isolated case as though it speaks for an entire people, and ignore the fact that their own “side” harbors extremists who celebrate the burning of infants alive.

This is not just weak — it’s morally bankrupt. It's the rhetorical equivalent of plugging one's ears and screaming "But look at them!" while pretending the blood on your own hands is someone else’s problem. It is the logic of a frightened ideologue who senses, somewhere deep in the recesses of their conscience, that their position can’t hold under the weight of reality. So they don’t debate — they deflect. They don’t argue — they moralize. And they sure as hell don’t think — they perform.

Their version of righteousness is a hollow pantomime: outrage without empathy, analysis without evidence, and certainty without reflection. They want to believe in a world divided into saints and monsters because it lets them justify collective punishment, mass civilian deaths, and dehumanization — not as regrettable necessities, but as righteous purification. That’s not morality. That’s fanaticism hiding behind the fig leaf of patriotism.

Edited Friday at 11:54 PM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze

Using Chatgpt for data is acceptable, but for moral and value judgement , it's an insult to intelligence. If you can't understand it it's impossible have a conversation with you. 

Settler terrorism is something extremely negative, no one doubts it. You should also condemn Palestinian terrorism, not justify it.

The Palestinians must absolutely abandon violence, and from there begin to achieve things. The first thing they would achieve would be a change of government in Israel, and the second, a state. Then coexistence and development as society. But first they should want that. They want development or death and paradise? That is the question. 

This Palestinian thinks that they are focused in death 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9xQ3Vhp6yW/?igsh=czdoa3cwOWd0dHFq

[zazen]

44 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

Settler terrorism is something extremely negative, no one doubts it. You should also condemn Palestinian terrorism, not justify it.

Most people aren't justifying extremism or terrorism - their understanding the root cause and conditions that give rise to it to prevent it in the first place. That root cause is something you overlook or justify yourself as ''benevolent colonialism''. You keep moving the goalposts after your arguments get shutdown.

- First it was that Muslims are stupid and violent in general. We de-bunked that by bringing you information of past relations in the region which have largely been peaceful and that got ruptured with the introduction of Zionism to the region.

- Then, you said Muslim countries should be open to recognizing Israel like the Indonesian president said in the video you shared - which was conditional on Palestinian recognition and statehood. Information was provided to you that the ''OIC, or Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - a intergovernmental organization of 57 member states that serves as the collective voice of the Muslim world'' hold this exact view.

- You've now moved the goalpost to Palestinians in particular (rather than Muslims in general) who have built their identity solely around hatred and exist for it. That's like saying the Jews built their entire identity around hatred for their persecution - but that's not their entire identity. If your environmental conditions oppress you are you supposed to simply not react to that? I could say the entire South American continent built their identity on hatred when they wanted to de-colonize from Spanish and Portuguese colonization. They don't exist to hate, they hate the conditions their in and the ones who place them in those conditions. Your trying to essentialize their identity as being one of hate which is just bigoted and disregarding of their conditions which you are doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify.

- You then got presented information from prominent Zionists themselves who have pointed to them colonizing the Palestinians and that any people (civilized or not, developed or not) would resists this. This isn't indicative of some internal defect of those people (Palestinians) which is your bigoted worldview.

- I've used Spain as a parallel analogy so that you may empathize or at lease understand the Palestinian situation as a Spaniard yourself - but you just deflect, evade, justify the injustice, or miss the forest for the tree's entirely. You can't teach arrogance - what you need is a humble pie to admit your framing of the situation and your worldview about Muslims isn't true. Extremism and Islamists do exist - but you conflate and universalize that then base your analysis on it. Their are make shift schools teaching kids extreme views in Gaza - but you exaggerate that to say the entirety of Gaza is like that - then use that to justify Israel's actions.

Edited Saturday at 09:31 AM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Most people aren't justifying extremism or terrorism - their understanding the root cause and conditions that give rise to it to prevent it in the first place. That root cause is something you overlook or justify yourself as ''benevolent colonialism''. You keep moving the goalposts after your arguments get shutdown.

Then you don't justify, just you see that has a cause (legitimate) that are the conditions that give rise it. Is being bit liar right?

3 hours ago, zazen said:

First it was that Muslims are stupid and violent in general.

Yes anyone who believes in Muhammad, paradise and hell is stupid by definition. Christians also believe in dogma, but nowadays they are minority who really believe, and also are stupid. Anyway Jesus weren't a warlord pedophile. It adds a plus of stupidity. And cause this:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPeEJL_DSAG/?igsh=NGJkbTNieWE5dGQx

Anyway, what would you think about a country ruled by fanatic Bishops that forbidden women showing legs under death condemn? Well, as you are a liar, if it's in your side you would justify it

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Then, you said Muslim countries should be open to recognizing Israel like the Indonesian president said in the video you shared - which was conditional on Palestinian recognition and statehood. Information was provided to you that the ''OIC, or Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - a intergovernmental organization of 57 member states that serves as the collective voice of the Muslim world'' hold this exact

Look liar, it's the Muslim voice NOW, after realizing that Israel is impossible to erase. Before, liar, the voice was total war against Israel. Can you understand the difference, liar?

3 hours ago, zazen said:

You've now moved the goalpost to Palestinians in particular (rather than Muslims in general) who have built their identity solely around hatred and exist for it. That's like saying the Jews built their entire identity around hatred for their persecution - but that's not their entire identity. If your environmental conditions oppress you are you supposed to simply not react to that? I could say the entire South American continent built their identity on hatred when they wanted to de-colonize from Spanish and Portuguese colonization. They don't exist to hate, they hate the conditions their in and the ones who place them in those conditions. Your trying to essentialize their identity as being one of hate which is just bigoted and disregarding of their conditions which you are doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify.

The Jews and south America never built is identity focused in hate, liar. They had independence wars, like the Indians, but even the American natives, who were really exterminated, never teach hate and suicide to their children. As you are a liar, for you it's the same, but it isn't 

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Extremism and Islamists do exist

Yes, and they rule Palestine, that's the problem, as you know, liar. 

I'm done with both of you, you are just liars that are defending your position because your origins, family, anything, is closer than this position than the other. If you were a Jew you would defend Israel with the same lies. No integrity. Zero value. 

Anyone who can see would be that obvious reality that regardless of the thousands of nuances and injustices committed, a society based on the cult of death, which teaches suicide as an essential value to its children, has no future. It must change of its own free will or be forced to do so. The Japanese were forced, the Aztecs too, and the Islamists will be.

Watch those educative videos

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMc7LXbuKZ8/?igsh=MWN6bXdjZW8yNWgybQ==

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOlO27PE96c/?igsh=Z3ozYng1dnlodjQ=

One final question: Do you think it was positive or negative for humanity that Buddhism existed or not? And Christianity? And advaita Vedanta? And the Aztec religion? And Islam? And Japanese empire? And Nazism? And Spanish expansion? And democracy? And American culture? And communism? Roman empire? Gengis peace?

Are all the same? No one absolutely positive, but some more that others, and some of them quite negative . And nowadays Islamism...well. Islam has the chance of stopping being politic and become personal, Sufi. Let's see if they achieve it or become islamist, and that's a plague

 

Edited Saturday at 12:32 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

@zazen

By the way, using the example of the Spanish colonies demonstrates a childlike level of understanding. Those who rebelled were descendants of Spaniards, just like in the American War of Independence. Not the Aztecs; they no longer existed. Do you understand the difference?

The Bulgarians were colonized by the ottomans for centuries. Did they teach their children suicide?

[zazen]

52 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@zazen

By the way, using the example of the Spanish colonies demonstrates a childlike level of understanding. Those who rebelled were descendants of Spaniards, just like in the American War of Independence. Not the Aztecs; they no longer existed. Do you understand the difference?

The Bulgarians were colonized by the ottomans for centuries. Did they teach their children suicide?

Even so, why did they rebel, what were they rebelling against - colonialism correct? Are they stupid for rebelling against colonialism, according to your own logic? You don't seem to understand that no one willingly wants to be colonized, but when they are and become extreme in their ways - you then gaslight and use that as a excuse to keep colonizing them.

I pin you down to the floor, you scratch my eye, I point at your aggression as evidence for why I must continue to pin you down. That’s the circular logic your using, rather than the logic of perhaps I shouldn’t pin you down in the first place.

Why don't other Muslims elsewhere teach their kids those extremist views? You shared a video praising the Indonesian president for his moderate stance - and they take Islam very very seriously over there. Even more than some other Muslim countries which are much more liberal like Turkey or Lebanon.

So why are they moderate compared to Hamas - why is it that Hamas are extreme? It must be because of the environmental conditions they are in that started due to settler colonialism and persist till today as occupation. Duhhhhhhh.

Oh look, another Muslim country's ex-prime minister speaking on peace and not being a extremist Muslims - again, I wonder why?

What causes some Muslims to become extreme Islamists and not others - perhaps because of conditions they are placed in by larger powers more powerful than them which impose such conditions. Conditions that you keep trying to justify rather than facing your wrong about - you still haven't eaten your humble pie.

Edited Saturday at 12:33 PM by zazen