A place to post and discuss news related to the recent events in Israel, including the Hamas/Islamic Jihad incursion and repercussions.
Thanks for the article. I agree with some of it, but this point really doesn't hold up.
Of the remaining principles of the law of war – distinction, humanity (which, as the International Committee of the Red Cross phrases it, “forbids the infliction of all suffering, injury or destruction not necessary for achieving the legitimate purpose of a conflict”) and honor in conduct of waging war – the principle of distinction is the most complex. Distinction requires Israel to “distinguish between the civilian population and combatants” and between civilian facilities and military targets, while taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. So far I have seen the IDF implementing – and in some cases going beyond – many of the best practices developed to minimize the harm of civilians in similar large-scale urban battles.
Quoting from the UN Secretary General's speech:
More journalists have reportedly been killed over a four-week period than in any conflict in at least three decades.
More United Nations aid workers have been killed than in any comparable period in the history of our organization.
I join the UN family in mourning 89 of our UNRWA colleagues who have been killed in Gaza – many of them together with members of their family.
That phosphorus stuff is really out of bounds. I don't know of any use case for it being ok, ever? Am I wrong?
For context, the report I read was that 4 civilians died in that phosphorus attack. 48 combatants. That appears to lend credence that ISR is going after appropriate military targets? Maybe not?
On adding up numbers of deaths to determine culpability. I think a strict utilitarian would argue that: [n+1] > [n] and therefore whichever "side" produced more deaths is the worse actor. The argument being that any innocent human life lost is equally bad, regardless of other factors. Pretty sure Chomsky would subscribe to this, for a more recent example.
Non-utilitarians would look at that very differently.
That phosphorus stuff is really out of bounds. I don't know of any use case for it being ok, ever? Am I wrong?
For context, the report I read was that 4 civilians died in that phosphorus attack. 48 combatants. That appears to lend credence that ISR is going after appropriate military targets? Maybe not?
On adding up numbers of deaths to determine culpability. I think a strict utilitarian would argue that: [n+1] > [n] and therefore whichever "side" produced more deaths is the worse actor. The argument being that any innocent human life lost is equally bad, regardless of other factors. Pretty sure Chomsky would subscribe to this, for a more recent example.
Non-utilitarians would look at that very differently.
It’s been awhile since I was in the Army so rules may have changed. But it was one of those borderline weapons that you can claim is just being used to create a smoke screen but is also effective at digging out entrenched enemies. Given there are alternatives for smoke screens, I would see it as being immoral to use if there’s any danger of civilians being in the area.
What all that leads to is, as the Isreali foreign minister described, a "challenging" enviroment.
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I was totally spitballing random ideas. Good on Ireland for having some guts!
By some miracle, does anyone have a Haaretz password they can share? Almost everything on their site is paywalled and I'm trying to find more stuff to read.
Well, shit. This is how I learn 12ft.io was shut down.
Top_Shelf wrote:That phosphorus stuff is really out of bounds. I don't know of any use case for it being ok, ever? Am I wrong?
For context, the report I read was that 4 civilians died in that phosphorus attack. 48 combatants. That appears to lend credence that ISR is going after appropriate military targets? Maybe not?
On adding up numbers of deaths to determine culpability. I think a strict utilitarian would argue that: [n+1] > [n] and therefore whichever "side" produced more deaths is the worse actor. The argument being that any innocent human life lost is equally bad, regardless of other factors. Pretty sure Chomsky would subscribe to this, for a more recent example.
Non-utilitarians would look at that very differently.
It’s been awhile since I was in the Army so rules may have changed. But it was one of those borderline weapons that you can claim is just being used to create a smoke screen but is also effective at digging out entrenched enemies. Given there are alternatives for smoke screens, I would see it as being immoral to use if there’s any danger of civilians being in the area.
Yeah, I saw a WP grenade demonstrated in basic training a million years ago. I thought at the time that I'd rather be killed instantly by a standard frag grenade than have one of those thrown in my foxhole.
One of the reasons WP is banned for anti-personnel use is because when exposed to air it burns. And you cannot put it out in water, because it burns hot enough to pull the oxygen out of the water. You need to use oil to stop the burning.
It is an absolutely horrific weapon to use against living beings and should be banned, with the use of it treated as an international crime.
More journalists have reportedly been killed over a four-week period than in any conflict in at least three decades.
And these aren't just journalists who were out doing their jobs in a war zone - many of them have been killed by IDF airstrikes in their homes, along with their families: https://cpj.org/2023/11/journalist-c...
The IDF is claiming they don't target journalists but they do have a long and well-documented history of lying about this sh*t.
https://cpj.org/reports/2023/05/dead...
This is why I am driven insane by Muslims that say they won't vote for Biden. All their options are way, way worse.
The fear, and it's one I share, isn't that they will vote for an alternative, it's that they won't vote at all. Our voting system is so f*cked up that winning by over seven million votes means nothing due to the 5 states who had a total spread of 40k or so. I fully expect to lose Michigan in 2024 because of Biden's support of Israel. I'm hopeful that it's the only state that can draw a direct line between the two.
This is why I am driven insane by Muslims that say they won't vote for Biden. All their options are way, way worse.
Okay, but the counter-argument here is, what's the actual policy difference? Democrats act sad and apologetic and occasionally condescending while they ship Israel $14 billion of weapons to do an ethnic cleansing, while Republicans brag while doing the exact same thing? What behavior is more infuriating and insulting?
Well, one thing is I think we could expect a Trump presidency to quickly reimplement bans on travel and ability to claim refugee status that would target people coming from predominantly-Muslim, war-torn, oppressive countries. Stephen Miller is foaming at the mouth for the opportunity as we speak.
Am I crazy to be okay with crushing Hamas? Can I want that AND believe Palestinians deserve their own state?
Here's what Hamas leaders want, in their own words.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-...
'HAMAS’S GOAL IS NOT TO RUN GAZA, BRING IT WATER, ELECTRICITY'
Hamas says purpose of massacres was a ‘permanent’ state of war on Israel’s borders
As Israel is pressured to agree to pause in fighting, top officials in terror group laud ‘great act’ of Oct. 7 and say they never intended to ‘improve the situation in Gaza’The goal of Hamas’s October 7 massacres in southern Israel was to “change the entire equation,” bring permanent war to Israel’s borders and renew attention to the Palestinian cause, a senior member of the terror group’s politburo in Qatar said.
“What could change the equation was a great act, and without a doubt, it was known that the reaction to this great act would be big,” Khalil al-Hayya told The New York Times in an interview published Wednesday. “We had to tell people that the Palestinian cause would not die.”
On the morning of Saturday, October 7, some 3,000 Hamas terrorists stormed through the border fence into Israel, killing 1,400 people, most of them civilians, and taking at least 240 hostages.
Many of the victims were families murdered in their homes, and 260 people were mowed down at an outdoor music festival.
The onslaught was the deadliest attack in the country’s history, and in response, Israel vowed to eliminate Hamas from Gaza, where the group has ruled since 2007. An offensive has been launched from the air, ground and sea, with over 11,000 targets struck since the start of the war.
“We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm,” Al-Hayya said, confirming that he considered the attacks a success.
While world leaders have been pushing for Israel to agree to a ceasefire in its war against the Gaza terror group, Al-Hayya and other Hamas members dismissed the idea that they want to govern Gaza and restore a sense of calm, instead expressing support for endless conflict.
“I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us,” Hamas media consultant Taher El-Nounou told The Times.
“Hamas’s goal is not to run Gaza and to bring it water and electricity and such,” al-Hayya added. “Hamas, the Qassam [Brigades, its armed wing] and the resistance woke the world up from its deep sleep and showed that this issue must remain on the table.”
According to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, more than 10,000 people inside the coastal enclave have been killed since October 7. However, this number cannot be independently verified and is believed to include members of the terror organization as well as civilians killed by misfired rockets that fell within the Strip.
While international bodies including the United Nations and the World Health Organization have warned that Gaza is facing a humanitarian catastrophe as a result of heavy bombardment and its blockaded borders with Israel and Egypt, Hamas has continued to laud October 7 as a success and has dismissed the high civilian death toll as the price for victory.
On October 24, senior Hamas member Ghazi Hamad told Lebanese TV channel LBC that the October 7 massacre was just the first of many, and that “there will be a second, a third, and a fourth” attack if the group is given the chance.
“Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it,” he said at the time. “We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”
Israel has faced increased calls to allow fuel to enter the Gaza Strip in recent days as hospitals warn that they will soon run out. However, even as the country grants access to other humanitarian aid it continues to refrain from allowing fuel to enter, due to the concern that Hamas will hijack the fuel, using it instead to continue to attack Israel.
For its part, Hamas is believed to be stockpiling about half a million liters of fuel, even as hospitals run low, evidence of which has been corroborated by Western and Arab officials.
“This battle was not because we wanted fuel or laborers,” Al-Hayya told The Times of the consequences faced by Gaza’s civilians after the October 7 attack. “It did not seek to improve the situation in Gaza. This battle is to completely overthrow the situation.”
Am I crazy to be okay with crushing Hamas? Can I want that AND believe Palestinians deserve their own state?
Honest answer? Yes. That's what I would consider the most ethical stance.
In our world? Hell no. You're at best an anti-semite who cheers the wholesale slaughter of Jewish children and you're clearly excited to sign up for the next Hitler-like genocidal maniac's newsletter. At worst, you're just a war-monger who wants to see innocent people die in protection of Hamas. It's more than a little tiring, to be honest.
True story: in Worcester, MA a Starbucks got vandalized (bad!) with spray-paint saying "Fre Palestine" and "Free Gaza" (maybe not a bad message? - see your initial question). The cops are investigating the crime (all good here - vandalism is a crime) and treating it as a hate crime (WTAF?). Calling for freedom of a populace who is being bombed is hardly a hate crime, to me. I'm too young to remember the Holocaust, so maybe I'm just naive.
I found Obama's comments from minute 20:40 well put.
One of the major issues with Israel's strategy is that when fighting terrorist groups embedded in a civilian population, you need to use a strategy where your actions are not so horrific they create more terrorists in the future. Even separated from any humanitarian considerations, Israeli strategy doesn't make sense to me from a purely strategic military viewpoint.
As the Hamas spokesperson says, they're not worried about running out of martyrs. And a lot of their leadership is in safety abroad.
And a lot of their leadership is in safety abroad.
Their leader lives about a block from CENTCOM's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.
Top_Shelf wrote:Am I crazy to be okay with crushing Hamas? Can I want that AND believe Palestinians deserve their own state?
Honest answer? Yes. That's what I would consider the most ethical stance.
In our world? Hell no. You're at best an anti-semite who cheers the wholesale slaughter of Jewish children and you're clearly excited to sign up for the next Hitler-like genocidal maniac's newsletter. At worst, you're just a war-monger who wants to see innocent people die in protection of Hamas. It's more than a little tiring, to be honest.
True story: in Worcester, MA a Starbucks got vandalized (bad!) with spray-paint saying "Fre Palestine" and "Free Gaza" (maybe not a bad message? - see your initial question). The cops are investigating the crime (all good here - vandalism is a crime) and treating it as a hate crime (WTAF?). Calling for freedom of a populace who is being bombed is hardly a hate crime, to me. I'm too young to remember the Holocaust, so maybe I'm just naive.
"From the river to the sea" is code. So I can see how that statement has a fraught history and may not equate directly to: "Palestinians deserve their own state, free from harassment by Israelis, in the West Bank and Gaza" and be closer to: "Jews get out"
On my way to dropping off the kids at school every day, someone has graphitti up on a fence saying, "Palestine will be Free!" and I cannot help but wonder about how those words are viewed by:
Progressives protesting on campuses
Israelis living in Tel Aviv
Non-Jewish Israelis
Palestinians in the West Bank
Hamas
Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Iranian Revolutionary Guard
But every god damn time I read it with my kids in the car I think about how the Jewish people in my town read those same words when they drive by.
It's very easy to overly attribute broader causes to people than is fair.
Are many attributing the motivations and methods of Hamas to the average Palestinian? Yes they are.
Are many attributing Netanyahu and Zionist ethnocentric hatred of Palestinians to the Jewish community more broadly? Yes they are.
You can have sympathy for both sides simultaneously and that is not being hypocritical.
Don't forget, the proponents of conflict on both sides must have a casus belli to remain relevant to the people they purport to represent; and the average human is disinclined to die for a cause. The average cornered human however is more than prepared to put everything on the line.
We're closing in on 10,000 Palestinians to 1,400 Israeli. Who knows how many Lebanese and Syrian casualties which are not reported closely. Close to 100 perhaps more UN humanitarian and journalists killed on the middle.
The antisemitism we're seeing is part of the Hamas strategy. Israel might think it is getting the upper hand with 10:1 casualty rates but the relatively unwavering support for their post WW2 plight is strongly waning in the face of the unveiling of their true position. They were already in a state of arpatheid and a slow steady genocidal campaign.
Also, Obama can't really talk when he was ordering drone strikes on a neutral country.
We're closing in on 10,000 Palestinians to 1,400 Israeli.
I have tried to find actual numbers on how many of the Israeli casualties are children, since nearly half of the Palestinian casualties are children -- I suspect that the loss of those most innocent lives are heavily lopsided against the Palestinians.
It's a tragedy for the regular folks on both sides, yes. But the regular folks on the Palestinian side are once again paying a decidedly far higher toll.
I think I could stomach Israel's claims that this is a "necessary" war if they were also honest about the utter devastation they have enabled and exhibited genuine remorse and a sincere intent to help as much as possible with rebuilding and re-empowering the Palestinian people (it would also serve to help counter Hamas's propaganda).
One of the major issues with Israel's strategy is that when fighting terrorist groups embedded in a civilian population, you need to use a strategy where your actions are not so horrific they create more terrorists in the future. Even separated from any humanitarian considerations, Israeli strategy doesn't make sense to me from a purely strategic military viewpoint.
That depends. It does make sense if their overall goal is to remove the entire Palestinian population.
The civilian population becoming terrorists becomes much less of a problem if they're all stuck in Egypt or Lebanon or somewhere else, and the fact that Israel will respond to an attack on their territory by forcibly relocating the entire attacking faction and taking their land sends a pretty strong message to the governments of any countries that might be harboring said terrorists - the message being "don't let your people screw with us or you'll regret it".
(Note that this is all entirely speculation on what "purely strategic military standpoint" this strategy would make sense from, and is not meant to be actual speculation on what their objective actually is.)
For the "How did we get here?" crowd, from Norman Finkelstein's "Gaza":
On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly approved a resolution partitioning British-mandated Palestine into a Jewish state incorporating 56 percent of Palestine, and an Arab state incorporating the remaining 44 percent. In the war that ensued after the passage of the resolution, the newly born State of Israel expanded its borders to incorporate nearly 80 percent of Palestine.
Today, [2018] more than 70 percent of Gaza's inhabitants consist of expellees from the 1948 war and their descendants, and more than half of this overwhelmingly refugee population is under 18 years of age.
That's from page 3 and... I haven't read further yet.
[edit] my reason for going about it this way - at least for those of us in the US, this issue is presented as being immensely complicated and something you shouldn't even pretend to understand, when really there isn't that much complication. The USA was created in much the same way (albeit without the nightmare backdrop of the Holocaust of WWII). We wanted the land, we took it, we called it ours, and we demonized and murdered anyone who tried to take it back.
I found Obama's comments from minute 20:40 well put.
One of the major issues with Israel's strategy is that when fighting terrorist groups embedded in a civilian population, you need to use a strategy where your actions are not so horrific they create more terrorists in the future. Even separated from any humanitarian considerations, Israeli strategy doesn't make sense to me from a purely strategic military viewpoint.
As the Hamas spokesperson says, they're not worried about running out of martyrs. And a lot of their leadership is in safety abroad.
The British Army literally wrote down this lesson after Northern Ireland and later the US Army adjusted their methods more in line to the British ones in Iraq and Afghanisation which the British took part with them on. Rory Stewart is interesting to listen to on this very subject given his direct experiences in Basra.
The TLDR is that there is no victory but all you can do is smoother the violence enough to allow the people who want to building insitutions time to do so. Overt military solutions are basically a waste of time while intelligence gathering coupled with arrests is far better. You very rarely engage with paramilitaries but do so with special forces in a limited capacity.
242. The British Government’s main military objective in the 1980s was the destruction of
PIRA, rather than resolving the conflict. The Army’s operations during this time had
developed into a sophisticated mix of operations. The bulk of the Army, both
Regular and UDR, undertook visible ‘framework operations’.15 These were primarily
intended to reassure the public and deter terrorist activity, whilst assisting the
development of intelligence. Given effective intelligence that could be converted into
evidence, the terrorist could normally be arrested quite easily and prosecuted
through the courts. This might be called a ‘forensic and judicial’ process, and was of
course the normal procedure for the RUC.243. On a small number of occasions operations were planned to catch terrorists
undertaking serious and violent offences. Terrorists were killed on about 13 or 14
such operations, and arrested in a number of others. The most famous was that at
Loughgall on 8 May 1987 when eight terrorists died.16 Just over 40 terrorists were
killed in those operations, including several of their most experienced operators.
PIRA never found a solution to this tactic. The strength of public condemnation with
which nationalist media reported such operations indicated the serious effect they
had on PIRA.244. The three key tenets of Army policy in the 1980s were reassurance, deterrence and
attrition. Most of the attrition took place through arrest and conviction. Overt
operations probably killed at most a dozen terrorists during the 1980s. The number
killed in covert operations was in absolute terms not much greater. In any case
attrition of individual terrorists of itself had little effect on the outcome of the
campaign. However, PIRA seem to have been brought to believe that there was no
answer to Army covert operations, and that they would not win through violence.
That was probably a key factor.
You can read earlier where the British Army states quite clearly that the excessive force the used in the 70s was counterproductive and completely eroded all the good will that they recieived from Catholic areas when they first arrived.
That assumes that the current Israeli administration has a political interest in eliminating terrorism. Spoiler: it doesn't.
Terrorism (or at least the credible threat of it) is vital for their political legitimacy and the viability of their long term goal of a religiously homogenous, apartheid, ethnostate. "Victory" is defined as the end of Palestinian identity within the contiguous borders of Israel and they are actually saying the quiet part out loud. We just pretend not to hear it.
I can see where other nation's lessons in counterinsurgency could be helpful.
What I don't know is how much of Hamas' existence is due to Islamic extremism (ie, jihad) and how much is due to political expression/goals.
There's a religious component here (I think?) that changes the calculation a bit? If Hamas really does believe in "anything goes, including the intentional, face/face murder/mutilation because deity ordains it and besides, this life is meaningless. Only heavenly rewards matter, so any non-believers/apostates we kill we are doing deity's business by sending them to hell and any of our faith we also kill should be grateful as we've sent them to the afterlife for their rewards" that's a long, long, long way from the IRA, Cuban revolutionaries, fighting Jim Crow or even the Jacobins.
Whether force alone will suffice, I don't know. I highly, highly doubt it. And I wouldn't trust Netanyahu to figure out something so complex. But maybe force/violence is going to have to be some part of the answer, and not in the, one dozen messianic extremists killed over a 5 year period.
What I don't know is how much of Hamas' existence is due to Islamic extremism (ie, jihad) and how much is due to political expression/goals.
At this point I think it's a mistake to assume that any of Hamas' existence is due to Islamic extremism, or at least extremism in isolation (ie "they hate us because we're free" or whatever). The Israelis have, over many decades, created political and economic conditions in Gaza where extremism and martyrdom are more appealing to some number of righteously angry young men than trying to find a job with 50% unemployment while your family is slowly starved by Israeli sanctions and surveilled 24/7 by Israeli cameras and drones. Oh, and sometimes your family is in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets blown up by an Israeli hellfire missile.
Is revenge a political expression/goal? Or is that "jihad?" A little of both?
I don't know where to draw the line between terrorism for political goals and similar tactics for religious reasons (and I say that as someone who is learning more and more about the awfulness of what the West Bank extremist settlers are doing).
I do know that plenty of other oppressed peoples have not done things like what Hamas did and then celebrated it. At least in the modern era. Maybe we have to go back to other times when humans covered their actions in justification from their deity to find something similar. Like the Crusades or Thirty Years War or something.
I think even the Khmer Rouge tried to hide their atrocities.
From what I can gather, Hamas isn't ISIS. They don't have the precise doctrinal prescriptions that ISIS had, where if you were one step out of line, you were an apostate and needed to be killed, just like non-believers. But they do still seem (?) to adhere to jihadist practices and cover their actions with a blessing from their definition of deity.
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza. Hamas planned to go on a pogrom. I don't know what else to say.
I don't know where to draw the line between terrorism for political goals and similar tactics for religious reasons (and I say that as someone who is learning more and more about the awfulness of what the West Bank extremist settlers are doing).
I do know that plenty of other oppressed peoples have not done things like what Hamas did and then celebrated it. At least in the modern era. Maybe we have to go back to other times when humans covered their actions in justification from their deity to find something similar. Like the Crusades or Thirty Years War or something.
I think even the Khmer Rouge tried to hide their atrocities.
From what I can gather, Hamas isn't ISIS. They don't have the precise doctrinal prescriptions that ISIS had, where if you were one step out of line, you were an apostate and needed to be killed, just like non-believers. But they do still seem (?) to adhere to jihadist practices and cover their actions with a blessing from their definition of deity.
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza. Hamas planned to go on a pogrom. I don't know what else to say.
The ANC did very similar things to what Hamas has done. That is probably the closest parallel.
Top_Shelf, I think it's not going to be comparable anywhere.
Since when has the world calmly gazed upon creeping arpatheid and genocidal behaviour? Israel is the only case because as a nation founded from that same tragedy, nobody wants to be accused of antisemitism for calling them out.
Heck, you remember when Aung Sang Suu Kyi was once a Nobel peace winner? I remember my high school English teacher had her poster on the wall. Yet look at what happened in very recent memory.
I'm with Paleo Podunk and Axon on this. Young angry desperate and disillusioned young men are cornered animals and will choose the life of violence especially if there's food and perceived glory in that direction. That's not necessarily extremist jihadi mentality; that's ironically fatalistic survivalism.
Did you know there's lingering resentment in South East Asia for the French colonial and US withdrawal around the Vietnam War? When I was younger and his trauma still fresh in his mind, my father often blamed the western withdrawal for creating the power vacuum that let the Khmer Rouge in. Is his bitterness justified? I didn't quite understand it as I was literally conceived when they arrived in Australia on one of the last government chartered flights evacuating Khmer refugees; so naturally as I grew older my parents had more time to heal their minds and I haven't wished to exhume their ghosts of the past. All I do now is pass on their unwritten stories to my kids to remember their family histories.
The Khmer Rouge didn't so much hide their atrocities. They just perpetrated them in remote jungle concentration camps as the world had turned their back on the region and pretended not to see it until Hun Sen was installed as dictator for life. He is corrupt and kills opponents and doesn't progress the national interest but at least he isn't genocidal. How ironic that Hun Sen is more morally upstanding than Netanyahu.
Yeah, I sometimes think about what my life would be if I was that young angry desperate and disillusioned man. I can only preach peace and understanding because I was conceived as a child of freedom and my parents never taught violence as a solution to me. My parents would never have sought to be revolutionaries or martyrs; their parents before them also chose to flee the violence of Imperial Japanese occupation. That's why the Israeli strikes on fleeing civilians has made me feel so sick and angry. That could have been my parents, my siblings and family obliterated in indiscriminate bombings and artillery.
Top_Shelf wrote:I don't know where to draw the line between terrorism for political goals and similar tactics for religious reasons (and I say that as someone who is learning more and more about the awfulness of what the West Bank extremist settlers are doing).
I do know that plenty of other oppressed peoples have not done things like what Hamas did and then celebrated it. At least in the modern era. Maybe we have to go back to other times when humans covered their actions in justification from their deity to find something similar. Like the Crusades or Thirty Years War or something.
I think even the Khmer Rouge tried to hide their atrocities.
From what I can gather, Hamas isn't ISIS. They don't have the precise doctrinal prescriptions that ISIS had, where if you were one step out of line, you were an apostate and needed to be killed, just like non-believers. But they do still seem (?) to adhere to jihadist practices and cover their actions with a blessing from their definition of deity.
The Israelis withdrew from Gaza. Hamas planned to go on a pogrom. I don't know what else to say.
The ANC did very similar things to what Hamas has done. That is probably the closest parallel.
I don’t think that the ANC did close to what Hamas did on October the 7th…
Top_Shelf, I think it's not going to be comparable anywhere.
Since when has the world calmly gazed upon creeping arpatheid and genocidal behaviour?
Back in the early 80s, most of the world was fine with SA apartheid.
Pages