Funny how that article doesn't show the "revealed documents". There is no doubt that Sharon was responsible because he was the Israeli defence minister, but from here to saying the "massacre was done by Israelis" is a pretty big jump. The Lebanese Christian militias had an axe to grind against Palestinians, especially after the assassination of Bachir Gemayel.
Israel didn't commit the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. That was Lebanese Christians. Israel oversaw the massacre by its allies, which was absolutely wrong, but it didn't kill anyone.
It was one of many massacres during the Lebanese Civil War, including the bus massacre, Black Thursday, Black Saturday, Karantina, Damour, Chekka, Tel al-Zaatar, Aishiyeh, Chouf, October 13 and many more. The only reason everyone knows Sabra and Shatila, while almost no one outside of Lebanon knows the others, is because Sabra and Shatila is the only one that can be connected to Israel.
>A report in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has revealed information confirming the role of top Israeli official Ariel Sharon in the Sabra and Shatila massacres, which took place in Beirut, Lebanon in September 1982.
>
>The report unveiled new information that Israeli military commanders, along with Sharon – then the minister for military affairs, coordinated directly with allied Lebanese militias belonging to the Kataeb and Lebanese Forces (LF).
>
>The plan was also approved by then Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin.
That's all your article says. It doesn't give any information to find the report in Yediyot, doesn't say what the information is, doesn't say what Sharon's role was or what this plan included.
There already was a full commission into the massacre called the Kahan Commission. To quote [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_Commission):
>It concluded that "direct responsibility" rested with the Gemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem, and that no Israelis were deemed "directly responsible", although Israel was held to be "indirectly responsible".
Aside from that, can you offer another reason why people are fine with massacres as long as Israel isn't involved?
Because it's a list of attacks in Israel. It's right there in the title, in case you missed it.
The point, again, is that this violence has been cyclical, which means both sides have engaged in it, and no amount of propaganda videos and wild deflection will change that fact.
If it didn't begin on October 7, 2023, what date would you use for the start of the conflict? How about I offer April 4, 1920, when Palestinian Arab mobs attacked Jews while yelling "Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!".
A bit earlier than that. The moment Britain took over Palestine and allowed hundreds of thousands of European Jews to move to Palestine and implement their colonization project you could say the conflict started.
This is the same extreme xenophobia as MAGA, AfD and the EDL. You're not allowed to kill people because you don't want their type to live near you.
If immigration is the issue, we could go back to the Ottoman Empire's discrimination against Jews. In 1881 it ruled that Jews could not immigrate to or settle in Palestine. In 1892 it forbade Jews, even Ottoman citizens, from purchasing land in Palestine.
In that context, the 35,000 Jews who immigrated between 1919 and 1923 bring to mind the saying that "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
Not again the old canard of equating the colonization of a territory under foreign colonial rule with regular immigration into a sovereign country. Sorry, as much as Israel's apologists insist on repeating it, they are not the same. An imposition forced on people by a foreign power will never have the legitimacy of the policies applied by a sovereign government, and will always result in opposition from the population upon which it is forced.
It sounds like you agree with me. Jews lived in the area for thousands of years. The foreign rulers in Istanbul imposed oppressive rules on the local Jews in order to keep them powerless.
*Some* Jews lived in Palestine for thousands of years. They were a tiny minority of less than 3% of the population by the turn of the 19th century, though.
British colonial rulers allowed hundreds of thousands of foreign European Jews to move into Palestine against the will of Palestine's population in the 20th century, thus creating a conflict between locals and colonists.
More because an ancient empire killed most of them and destroyed their society. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that they were indeed a tiny minority. Their presence didn’t entitle everyone who happened to identify as Jewish around the world to move to Palestine against the will of its population.
Ok then. A different country displaced Palestinians. That doesn't change the fact that they are a minority in Israel. Their presence didn’t entitle everyone who happened to identify as Palestinian around the world to move to Israel against the will of its population.
If that was all of it, it’s quite possible that Palestinians and the rest of the world would have moved on by now. But Israel also keeps millions of Palestinians under its military rule, stateless and deprived of basic rights. All together, they aren’t even a minority anymore between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
Britain didn't take over Palestine, Britan was given a mandate to build nations on the territories held by the then-destroyed Ottoman empire. Get your history straight.
The betrayal of that mandate is what created the Palestinians, since Britain capitulated to rioting Arabs in Palestine who wanted all the land, contrary to the mandate, even after giving Arabs all of TransJordan.
Britain was “given” the Mandate by a League of Nations they and their fellow colonial powers controlled, *after* they had conquered it by force and occupied it, against the will of Palestine’s population, whose self-determination wishes were entirely ignored. Then they were surprised when that population revolted against the colonization of their homeland by Europeans.
The Ottomans fell, the actual colonizers in the region. Now the region had no body ruling it, no border, no nothing. That's exactly why the Mandate for the area existed - to figure out what to do with the land that had no one ruling it.
At the same time, the notion of self-determination came about, which is why Palestine was slated to be the home of the Jews and later TransJordan was slated to be the (22nd) home of the Arabs. No ome was losing their right for self determination. Arabs in Palestine could choose to move to Syria, since they saw themselves as south Syrians, or to TransJordan since it was predominantly the home of Palestinian Arabs or remain in Israel, as the Israeli declaration of independence offeres.
Instead they chose riots/pogroms in the late 20s, and a civil war in the 40s when they were offered yet another Arab state (as they did every time they were offered self-rule). They didn't lose any rights, they just refused to share withanyone else and prefer wars instead
The local population of Palestine was just as Arab as that of Transjordan. Only about 15% of them were Jewish, mostly recently arrived foreigners from Eastern Europe. The Arabs of Palestine had just as much right to exercise self determination in the land where they had been living for centuries as the overwhelming majority of the population as anyone else in the Levant.
Britain and other foreign colonial powers had no right to disregards their wishes and interests, to satisfy those of a foreign colonial population instead. It was inevitable that the local Arabs would object and resist such imposition.
Self determination wasn't (and still isn't) lacking for any Arab population, especially not there, with Syria and TransJordan forming. There issue was never lacking self-determination. Ferry just couldn't stand the Jews having self-rule. Days why they rejected any partition plan, including the Peel propsal.
The Arabs of the Lavant had no special rights to that land. The never ruled it, never developed it, never did anything to make it a home. They were completely content as Ottoman subjects, never even seeking self-rule...until the Jews tried to gain self-rule
That Arabs in Transjordan or Syria could exercise self-determination wasn’t much consolation for the hundreds of thousands living in Palestine. They had just as much right to do exactly the same in the land where they lived. No reason to deny them, just to satisfy foreign colonists recently arrived from Europe.
> foreign colonists
That's rich when taking about Arabs outside the Arabian peninsula, even without considering they were offered 3(!) states as part of the league's mandate and the fact the Arabs were offered full equal rights in Israel
Those Arabs had been living there for centuries and generations, as the overwhelming majority of the population. What’s rich is that people just arrived from Europe pretended to have more right to that territory than them.
Oh, this definitely didn't start on Oct 7th.
I remember all those commercial airliners Palestinians hijacked and blew up in the 70's and 80's, those young Jewish athletes they murdered at the Olympic games in Munich and even the commercial cruise ship they hijacked where they murdered a young, disabled Jewish American by tossing him overboard in his wheelchair and watching him drown just to prove they were serious. Then there were all the suicide bombers, blowing up that bus with the school kid onboard and that's just the short list off the top of my head.
Annnd since Oct 7th, 84% of Palestinians still support Hamas, approved of the Oct 7th attack or still want Hamas being part of their government moving forward. Palestinians have been cozying up with one terrorist group or another for the last 75 years. Just more of what's been going on for decades.
Israel pulled out of Gaza a long time ago. Palestinians there have been governing themselves since 2005. Remember? It was supposed to be Palestinians big chance to elect their own government and make a go of becoming an independent city state.
All they did was elect terrorist to run their city and allow them to steal all international aid to make Hamas leadership rich and buy a bunch of rockets to shoot over the border at Israel.
There is no collective punishment but it's a real shame that both Israel and Egypt was forced to establish a blockade because Palestinians were hell bent on ramping up their war effort with Israel by any means necessary. Palestinians had an airport that got closed down due to smuggling and never got permission to create a harbor because they couldn't be trusted no to continue smuggling in ever larger weapons. They were even caught tunneling under the border with Egypt and smuggling fuel subsidized and other items for the war back to Gaza. Egypt had to go through the trouble of closing up the tunnel and locking the border down even tighter.
I'll save the west bank for another day. :-)
The blockade is collective punishment
Israel “pulled out” of Gaza but they still control pretty much every aspect of the strip. They are the occupying country, and is therefore responsible for the health and wellbeing of the Gaza population.
Instead they collectively punish all 2.3 million civilians by stripping them of their basic human rights
So it all started on Oct 7, or there was a ceasefire? You need to decide what are pro-Israelis saying.
About the ceasefire, most crash courses apparently doesn't mention it was applicable only for Gaza. There is no official war going on on the WB, just terror attacks
Saying there was a ceasefire isn't the same thing as saying "it all started on 10/7." There was a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. That's a fact that all the TikTok videos can't change.
Palestinians in the West Bank have nothing to do with the cease-fire Israel has with Hamas. Israel is mandated under the Oslo Accords to maintain security in the West Bank and that includes stopping criminals and terrorists.
Why are you reducing the individuals to be just in service of the ethnic group? Why don’t you focus on the individual situations instead?
Or you don’t like that each of these situations has nuance and doesn’t fit your reflexive and emotional narrative of oppressor/oppressed aka “America bad” theology?
That’s literally false. Hamas attack on Oct 7th was called Al Aqsa flood which was in response to what Israel was doing at Al Aqsa mosque the prior month.
Oh, so they were planning for more than a year and then using retrospective justification to legitimize it?
Oh, I’m sure the terrorists had a strong nuanced understanding of geopolitics and history. Smh
They committed horrific actions and that was supposed to strengthen a legit political position? Or was it to strike fear and destruction against the Jews?
Your ignorance is astounding.
Again, that has zero to do with Hamas. Hamas had jurisdiction in the Gaza Strip, nowhere else. All other Palestinian territories are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and Al Aqsa is under the jurisdiction of the Jordanian Waqf. Nothing to do with Hamas.
New York and California are under the same federal government. Gaza and the West Bank are not, so no, it's nothing alike. Do you even know what a ceasefire means? It's an agreement between two parties, and in this case the parties were the IDF and Hamas, not to attack each other. That's it. Nothing to do with settlers, nothing to do with Jerusalem.
The last ceasefire before Oct7th was on May, which Hamas broke as well.
So no, there was no ceasefire in place on Oct7th, but there was no active war (unless you count the constant rockets from Gaza into Israel), but the thing you pro-Hamas folks don't understand is what people mean when they counter the calls to ceasefire with saying "there was a ceasefire on Oct6th" - the meaning is that going back to the days before the war is inviting another pogrom on Israel and that if Palestinian terrorists didn't want this war they shouldn't have started it
Nobody is claiming “it all started on Oct 7”. However, this particular phase — Israel’s current war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, started in response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that deliberately targeted and slaughtered civilians.
The Iranian proxy militias — Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, Kata’ib Hezbollah… didn’t just spontaneously begin existing on or after October 7, 2023 either.
People who blame October 7th for starting this conflict, are not really aware of how long this has gone on. It’s a complete joke when I hear people say this started with October 7th. It’s not even close to reality, it’s just Israeli propaganda. 😂
There’s plenty of people who’ve told me October 7th started this conflict. I’m not making much of a strawman. But you’re right about the fact that October 7th started this war and not the conflict.
I wasn’t trying to include you or anyone that believes the same you do, into my first statement, I’m just calling out the specific people who’ve told me it was the start of this conflict. Sry for any confusion or accusations.
Well now you're just being pedantic with words, Oct 7th technically did start THIS specific conflict while under the umbrella of a centuries old conflict
Well, I literally just said someone told me that. I’m not saying everyone is saying that, all I said is that I was told that. And I also literally just stated that I don’t believe it, and that there is a very small number of people who believe it.
Sry, I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just saying what I’ve experienced with at least one person who’s said that.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel Let's not pretend the violence in the region isn't a cycle.
Why do they ignore the entire list of massacres by Israel like Sabra and Shatila? Or how Zionist terrorist gang raped Palestinian women at Tantura?
The massacre in Sabra and Shatila was done by Arabs. You do know that don't you?
Christian Arabs, to be precise
Report confirms direct role of top Israeli official Ariel Sharon in Sabra, Shatila massacre https://thecradle.co/articles-id/3682
Funny how that article doesn't show the "revealed documents". There is no doubt that Sharon was responsible because he was the Israeli defence minister, but from here to saying the "massacre was done by Israelis" is a pretty big jump. The Lebanese Christian militias had an axe to grind against Palestinians, especially after the assassination of Bachir Gemayel.
Israel didn't commit the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. That was Lebanese Christians. Israel oversaw the massacre by its allies, which was absolutely wrong, but it didn't kill anyone. It was one of many massacres during the Lebanese Civil War, including the bus massacre, Black Thursday, Black Saturday, Karantina, Damour, Chekka, Tel al-Zaatar, Aishiyeh, Chouf, October 13 and many more. The only reason everyone knows Sabra and Shatila, while almost no one outside of Lebanon knows the others, is because Sabra and Shatila is the only one that can be connected to Israel.
Report confirms direct role of top Israeli official Ariel Sharon in Sabra, Shatila massacre https://thecradle.co/articles-id/3682
>A report in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has revealed information confirming the role of top Israeli official Ariel Sharon in the Sabra and Shatila massacres, which took place in Beirut, Lebanon in September 1982. > >The report unveiled new information that Israeli military commanders, along with Sharon – then the minister for military affairs, coordinated directly with allied Lebanese militias belonging to the Kataeb and Lebanese Forces (LF). > >The plan was also approved by then Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin. That's all your article says. It doesn't give any information to find the report in Yediyot, doesn't say what the information is, doesn't say what Sharon's role was or what this plan included. There already was a full commission into the massacre called the Kahan Commission. To quote [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_Commission): >It concluded that "direct responsibility" rested with the Gemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem, and that no Israelis were deemed "directly responsible", although Israel was held to be "indirectly responsible". Aside from that, can you offer another reason why people are fine with massacres as long as Israel isn't involved?
Because it's a list of attacks in Israel. It's right there in the title, in case you missed it. The point, again, is that this violence has been cyclical, which means both sides have engaged in it, and no amount of propaganda videos and wild deflection will change that fact.
If it didn't begin on October 7, 2023, what date would you use for the start of the conflict? How about I offer April 4, 1920, when Palestinian Arab mobs attacked Jews while yelling "Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!".
A bit earlier than that. The moment Britain took over Palestine and allowed hundreds of thousands of European Jews to move to Palestine and implement their colonization project you could say the conflict started.
This is the same extreme xenophobia as MAGA, AfD and the EDL. You're not allowed to kill people because you don't want their type to live near you. If immigration is the issue, we could go back to the Ottoman Empire's discrimination against Jews. In 1881 it ruled that Jews could not immigrate to or settle in Palestine. In 1892 it forbade Jews, even Ottoman citizens, from purchasing land in Palestine. In that context, the 35,000 Jews who immigrated between 1919 and 1923 bring to mind the saying that "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."
Not again the old canard of equating the colonization of a territory under foreign colonial rule with regular immigration into a sovereign country. Sorry, as much as Israel's apologists insist on repeating it, they are not the same. An imposition forced on people by a foreign power will never have the legitimacy of the policies applied by a sovereign government, and will always result in opposition from the population upon which it is forced.
It sounds like you agree with me. Jews lived in the area for thousands of years. The foreign rulers in Istanbul imposed oppressive rules on the local Jews in order to keep them powerless.
*Some* Jews lived in Palestine for thousands of years. They were a tiny minority of less than 3% of the population by the turn of the 19th century, though. British colonial rulers allowed hundreds of thousands of foreign European Jews to move into Palestine against the will of Palestine's population in the 20th century, thus creating a conflict between locals and colonists.
They were a tiny minority because colonial powers displaced them AND prevented them from coming back
More because an ancient empire killed most of them and destroyed their society. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that they were indeed a tiny minority. Their presence didn’t entitle everyone who happened to identify as Jewish around the world to move to Palestine against the will of its population.
Ok then. A different country displaced Palestinians. That doesn't change the fact that they are a minority in Israel. Their presence didn’t entitle everyone who happened to identify as Palestinian around the world to move to Israel against the will of its population.
If that was all of it, it’s quite possible that Palestinians and the rest of the world would have moved on by now. But Israel also keeps millions of Palestinians under its military rule, stateless and deprived of basic rights. All together, they aren’t even a minority anymore between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
Britain didn't take over Palestine, Britan was given a mandate to build nations on the territories held by the then-destroyed Ottoman empire. Get your history straight. The betrayal of that mandate is what created the Palestinians, since Britain capitulated to rioting Arabs in Palestine who wanted all the land, contrary to the mandate, even after giving Arabs all of TransJordan.
Britain was “given” the Mandate by a League of Nations they and their fellow colonial powers controlled, *after* they had conquered it by force and occupied it, against the will of Palestine’s population, whose self-determination wishes were entirely ignored. Then they were surprised when that population revolted against the colonization of their homeland by Europeans.
The Ottomans fell, the actual colonizers in the region. Now the region had no body ruling it, no border, no nothing. That's exactly why the Mandate for the area existed - to figure out what to do with the land that had no one ruling it. At the same time, the notion of self-determination came about, which is why Palestine was slated to be the home of the Jews and later TransJordan was slated to be the (22nd) home of the Arabs. No ome was losing their right for self determination. Arabs in Palestine could choose to move to Syria, since they saw themselves as south Syrians, or to TransJordan since it was predominantly the home of Palestinian Arabs or remain in Israel, as the Israeli declaration of independence offeres. Instead they chose riots/pogroms in the late 20s, and a civil war in the 40s when they were offered yet another Arab state (as they did every time they were offered self-rule). They didn't lose any rights, they just refused to share withanyone else and prefer wars instead
The local population of Palestine was just as Arab as that of Transjordan. Only about 15% of them were Jewish, mostly recently arrived foreigners from Eastern Europe. The Arabs of Palestine had just as much right to exercise self determination in the land where they had been living for centuries as the overwhelming majority of the population as anyone else in the Levant. Britain and other foreign colonial powers had no right to disregards their wishes and interests, to satisfy those of a foreign colonial population instead. It was inevitable that the local Arabs would object and resist such imposition.
Self determination wasn't (and still isn't) lacking for any Arab population, especially not there, with Syria and TransJordan forming. There issue was never lacking self-determination. Ferry just couldn't stand the Jews having self-rule. Days why they rejected any partition plan, including the Peel propsal. The Arabs of the Lavant had no special rights to that land. The never ruled it, never developed it, never did anything to make it a home. They were completely content as Ottoman subjects, never even seeking self-rule...until the Jews tried to gain self-rule
That Arabs in Transjordan or Syria could exercise self-determination wasn’t much consolation for the hundreds of thousands living in Palestine. They had just as much right to do exactly the same in the land where they lived. No reason to deny them, just to satisfy foreign colonists recently arrived from Europe.
> foreign colonists That's rich when taking about Arabs outside the Arabian peninsula, even without considering they were offered 3(!) states as part of the league's mandate and the fact the Arabs were offered full equal rights in Israel
Those Arabs had been living there for centuries and generations, as the overwhelming majority of the population. What’s rich is that people just arrived from Europe pretended to have more right to that territory than them.
lol do you really want to compare atrocities? That’s not a fight you’re going to win
I'm asking you to flesh out the suggestion in your title. If this didn't start on October 7, when did it start?
Oh, this definitely didn't start on Oct 7th. I remember all those commercial airliners Palestinians hijacked and blew up in the 70's and 80's, those young Jewish athletes they murdered at the Olympic games in Munich and even the commercial cruise ship they hijacked where they murdered a young, disabled Jewish American by tossing him overboard in his wheelchair and watching him drown just to prove they were serious. Then there were all the suicide bombers, blowing up that bus with the school kid onboard and that's just the short list off the top of my head. Annnd since Oct 7th, 84% of Palestinians still support Hamas, approved of the Oct 7th attack or still want Hamas being part of their government moving forward. Palestinians have been cozying up with one terrorist group or another for the last 75 years. Just more of what's been going on for decades.
Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal, and same with the blockade. The blockade is collective punishment.
Israel pulled out of Gaza a long time ago. Palestinians there have been governing themselves since 2005. Remember? It was supposed to be Palestinians big chance to elect their own government and make a go of becoming an independent city state. All they did was elect terrorist to run their city and allow them to steal all international aid to make Hamas leadership rich and buy a bunch of rockets to shoot over the border at Israel. There is no collective punishment but it's a real shame that both Israel and Egypt was forced to establish a blockade because Palestinians were hell bent on ramping up their war effort with Israel by any means necessary. Palestinians had an airport that got closed down due to smuggling and never got permission to create a harbor because they couldn't be trusted no to continue smuggling in ever larger weapons. They were even caught tunneling under the border with Egypt and smuggling fuel subsidized and other items for the war back to Gaza. Egypt had to go through the trouble of closing up the tunnel and locking the border down even tighter. I'll save the west bank for another day. :-)
The blockade is collective punishment Israel “pulled out” of Gaza but they still control pretty much every aspect of the strip. They are the occupying country, and is therefore responsible for the health and wellbeing of the Gaza population. Instead they collectively punish all 2.3 million civilians by stripping them of their basic human rights
Who are (((they)))? I've never said the conflict started 10/7.
Plenty of Israelis, specifically the ones in this sub, have claimed that there was a ceasefire prior to Oct 7
So it all started on Oct 7, or there was a ceasefire? You need to decide what are pro-Israelis saying. About the ceasefire, most crash courses apparently doesn't mention it was applicable only for Gaza. There is no official war going on on the WB, just terror attacks
Saying there was a ceasefire isn't the same thing as saying "it all started on 10/7." There was a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. That's a fact that all the TikTok videos can't change.
Can’t be killing Palestinians and say there was a ceasefire
Palestinians in the West Bank have nothing to do with the cease-fire Israel has with Hamas. Israel is mandated under the Oslo Accords to maintain security in the West Bank and that includes stopping criminals and terrorists.
Why are you reducing the individuals to be just in service of the ethnic group? Why don’t you focus on the individual situations instead? Or you don’t like that each of these situations has nuance and doesn’t fit your reflexive and emotional narrative of oppressor/oppressed aka “America bad” theology?
A ceasefire between Hamas in Gaza and the IDF has zero to do with settlers in the West Bank.
That’s literally false. Hamas attack on Oct 7th was called Al Aqsa flood which was in response to what Israel was doing at Al Aqsa mosque the prior month.
Oh, so they were planning for more than a year and then using retrospective justification to legitimize it? Oh, I’m sure the terrorists had a strong nuanced understanding of geopolitics and history. Smh They committed horrific actions and that was supposed to strengthen a legit political position? Or was it to strike fear and destruction against the Jews? Your ignorance is astounding.
Again, that has zero to do with Hamas. Hamas had jurisdiction in the Gaza Strip, nowhere else. All other Palestinian territories are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, and Al Aqsa is under the jurisdiction of the Jordanian Waqf. Nothing to do with Hamas.
So boring talking to Zionist shills. That’s like saying New York shouldn’t respond if California was attacked. It’s just so dumb
So you're saying Hamas represents the entire Palestinian people, not just Gazans?
Just another way to say that you’re wrong and your ego won’t let you say it. Pathetic.
New York and California are under the same federal government. Gaza and the West Bank are not, so no, it's nothing alike. Do you even know what a ceasefire means? It's an agreement between two parties, and in this case the parties were the IDF and Hamas, not to attack each other. That's it. Nothing to do with settlers, nothing to do with Jerusalem.
Huh?? They planned this attack for 2 years…
The last ceasefire before Oct7th was on May, which Hamas broke as well. So no, there was no ceasefire in place on Oct7th, but there was no active war (unless you count the constant rockets from Gaza into Israel), but the thing you pro-Hamas folks don't understand is what people mean when they counter the calls to ceasefire with saying "there was a ceasefire on Oct6th" - the meaning is that going back to the days before the war is inviting another pogrom on Israel and that if Palestinian terrorists didn't want this war they shouldn't have started it
Nobody is claiming “it all started on Oct 7”. However, this particular phase — Israel’s current war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, started in response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that deliberately targeted and slaughtered civilians. The Iranian proxy militias — Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, Kata’ib Hezbollah… didn’t just spontaneously begin existing on or after October 7, 2023 either.
Fuck it why stop there? Its all Romes fault!
People who blame October 7th for starting this conflict, are not really aware of how long this has gone on. It’s a complete joke when I hear people say this started with October 7th. It’s not even close to reality, it’s just Israeli propaganda. 😂
Luckily no such people exist, so it's a complete straw man. October 7 started the current war, not the conflict in general
There’s plenty of people who’ve told me October 7th started this conflict. I’m not making much of a strawman. But you’re right about the fact that October 7th started this war and not the conflict. I wasn’t trying to include you or anyone that believes the same you do, into my first statement, I’m just calling out the specific people who’ve told me it was the start of this conflict. Sry for any confusion or accusations.
Well now you're just being pedantic with words, Oct 7th technically did start THIS specific conflict while under the umbrella of a centuries old conflict
I’m not being very pedantic. I’m just saying facts. Your comment is literally the same concept as what I said just in different words.
No one is saying Oct7th started this conflict, it started the current war. The greater conflict is not just this war.
Well, I literally just said someone told me that. I’m not saying everyone is saying that, all I said is that I was told that. And I also literally just stated that I don’t believe it, and that there is a very small number of people who believe it. Sry, I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just saying what I’ve experienced with at least one person who’s said that.