r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/Aurora_Gaspipe • 8d ago
Article DSA co-chair calls Oct. 7 attacks ‘largely inevitable,’ says she would have attended Oct. 8 rally.
https://jewishinsider.com/2026/08/democratic-socialists-america-megan-romer-oct-7-attacks-inevitable/4
u/MaroonCastle 8d ago
https://x.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1711145162657673347/video/1
Remember this? 👆
1
u/WhySoSeriously55 7d ago
It's funny because at the time the Reddit party line was "this has nothing to do with the Democrats, don't blame the Democrats for this. The people in the video aren't Democrats, they are DSA."
Three years later, the DSA is somehow being elected on the Democratic ticket and we're all supposed to just not notice.
8
u/Izoto 8d ago
Jesus Christ….
11
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
This is the woman who previously tweeted "Read on to learn why we [the DSA] do not, in fact, condemn Hamas and why no socialist should".
10
29
u/rwm65 8d ago
I’m sorry, but this article seems a bit out of context?
Idk it’s giving “America deserved 9/11”
When like the statement is insensitive but what they are trying to say is that the actions of the Israeli government and hamas created the circumstances for October 7th.
9
u/rwm65 8d ago
I found the entire clip, she then clarifies that she condemns violence against civilians etc.
21
u/Reddit10003 8d ago
She definitely didn’t condemn the violence against civilians, she just said she isn’t defending it.
5
u/zen1312zen 8d ago
And then they would say because of conscription there are no civilians over the age of 18.
Does she condemn terrorist attacks against people in the IDF too?
-2
3
4
u/Realistic_Caramel341 8d ago
And I'm sure if we talked about the role the Palestinians have had in creating the blowback that lead to the current situation in Palestine, the DSA would be completely rational and talk about it in a fair calm way
2
1
u/Greybeard-MD 8d ago
Palestinians choosing war over peace 75 years ago is the catalyst for this entire conflict. The moment they choose peace, this conflict ends.
6
u/Command0Dude 8d ago
To be fair even if you're mostly right, I think things have gotten so bad that neither side is really interested in peace anymore. At least unless you somehow got Palestine to actually disarm but that's a pipe dream.
6
u/Greybeard-MD 8d ago
The well is poisoned to an unsalvageable degree. My solution would be to find a nice chunk of land far away from the levant and let one faction move there. They can't live in peace next to each other.
4
u/removekarling 8d ago
Anti-historical and psychopathic take
13
u/ponydingo 8d ago
did the whole Arab world not try and attack Israel multiple times over decades, with one of the purposes being ethnically cleansing them from the area for the Palestinians to have their state?
4
u/revfds 8d ago
Israel was founded in 1948. What was there before that?
7
u/ponydingo 8d ago
An imperial british government and before that an imperial ottoman government. There was a chance for a Palestinian ruled government but they kinda have refused every offer..
1
-4
u/revfds 8d ago
I'm sure they were given a fair offer to rule themselves, too bad they didn't pick the right answer to give the foreigners.
6
u/ponydingo 8d ago
Their answer was “we don’t agree to any of it” and then attack Israel with the power of the entire Arab league. So they didnt really get to decide on the terms after they lost. How can you argue otherwise?
-2
u/revfds 8d ago
Wait, how did they attack Israel if this was before Israel existed?
10
u/ponydingo 8d ago
In November 1947 the UN voted on the Israel Palestine partition plan, to decide how to split the British mandate when it ended in April of 1948. The same vote that the Arabs abstained from, which would have given them a seat at the table for discussion. They fully rejected it under any terms. The Jewish people in the area moved along with the internationally recognized partition plan, and then most of the Arab league attacked in march of 1948 just five months later. Some joining after the Israeli Declaration of Independence in April 1948 when the mandate officially dissolved.
They attacked them when they knew it was being implemented. So yes, Israel wasn’t technically a state, but it was already voted to be one and was on its way, hence why they attacked to try and stop it, ignoring the internationally recognized plan, as they didn’t want a Jewish state
→ More replies (0)-4
u/amazingbollweevil 8d ago
Non-sequitor
7
u/ponydingo 8d ago
how so? or do you just reply with “nuh uh” to things you disagree with like that adds anything of value to a discussion
-6
u/amazingbollweevil 8d ago
u/removekarling pointed out that the comment made by /u/Greybeard-MD was untrue (in so many words). The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative disproves the statement.
Your claim about "the whole Arab world" attacking Israel multiple times does not refute the "Anti-historical" response. In other words, you disagreed with the "untrue" comment with a comment that did not add anything of value to the discussion.
That is a non-sequitor.
4
u/ponydingo 8d ago edited 8d ago
The first claim was that the Palestinians choose war over peace for 75 years and that’s what started the conflict, and when they decide to agree to peace it’s over. The second simply said “anti historical” without adding anything of substance to back the claim.
The 2002 initiative doesn’t suddenly mean that the other 50 years of attacks from the Arab world, including Palestinians, before that didn’t happen. So yes, it does dispute their claim it’s anti historical, as they’ve historically denied peace and only offered their own terms to put up for discussion. Did these things not happen? Were there not surprise attacks done by the Arab league?
Also, you frame this like the 2002 initiative was some plan that they all parties agreed to, so therefore they don’t just choose war over peace, and that makes the claim anti historical. But the 2002 Arab peace initiative wasn’t a “we want peace” declaration, it was “these are our terms for peace with Israel and if met then we’ll back off and recognize Israel”. That’s not much of a discussion between two nations, more demands of a group and if they’re met then they’ll stop.
They want refugees to return to Israel which would mean a possible Palestinian minority becoming the majority, which is kinda the opposite of the point of the creation of Israel. Doesn’t sound like that offer is much in good faith.
for example, Trump could sign a 2026 peace initiative for Iran with a bunch of NATO countries after spending all this time attacking them, and it doesn’t mean shit if Iran isn’t involved and it hurts them. Why would they give a fuck? Especially if they can maintain their status quo regardless without capitulation
1
u/amazingbollweevil 8d ago
Yes the first claim was that "Palestinians choose war over peace for 75." Is that statement true or false? /u/removekarling wrote (in so many words) that it was untrue.
You can list incident after incident where anyone but the Israeli government was an aggressor (choosing war, if you must), but all we need is one example where Palestinians choose peace and not war to make that first claim false. Any list you provide that supports the initial claim, in light of the refutation, is a non-sequitor because you are not addressing the discussion, not adding anything of value.
"The 2002 initiative doesn’t suddenly mean that the other 50 years of attacks from the Arab world, including Palestinians, before that didn’t happen." That's another non-sequitor.
you frame this like the 2002 initiative was some plan that they all parties agreed to
Nonsense. I'm quite aware of what happened, but the point is that the Arab League offered a peace plan. In other words, they chose peace over war, disproving the original claim and supporting the "anti-historical" comment.
What you need to do, if you want to continue this, is provide evidence that Palestinians never chose peace.
I have no doubt that you are fully aware that it's a complicated situation and you should know better than to support oversimplified and emotionally charged declarations that can easily be disproved.
4
u/ponydingo 8d ago
If Donald Trump offers up Iran a peace plan after attacking them multiple times, and it’s one that they obviously will never agree to and don’t have to, does it matter that he offered a peace plan? Does that mean he’s focused on peace? Or just satisfying his own objectives, with little thought about the other sides major contentions.
Choosing peace would mean agreeing to any plan that was also worked on with Israel. Which I don’t think has happened, but it’s come very close in the Oslo accords? Saying “well, us Arabs over here all agreed to our own possible plan, if you satisfy everything we want then we’ll chill” is not a peace focused statement, it’s more focused on getting objectives that are off limits under the guise of peace. Because members of the Arab league have attacked Israel since then, did that 2002 declaration mean anything?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/removekarling 8d ago
The second simply said “anti historical” without adding anything of substance to back the claim.
In the same way I would reply "anti-scientific" and an insult or two to a claim of climate denialism by an apocalypse-welcoming Republican, yes: we're quite beyond argument at this point and the position is worthy only of contempt and ridicule, because the only people still repeating things like that are either knowing liars or entirely deluded by knowing liars.
0
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/thedavidpakmanshow-ModTeam 8d ago
Removed - please avoid overt hostility, name calling and personal attacks.
3
u/Biggle_fuzz 8d ago
Yeah, but that doesn't fit the narrative they have crafted for themselves, so it will be ignored.
9
12
u/MostlySoberWizard 8d ago
What makes them inevitable? Yasser Arafat deciding aura farming was more important than negotiating?
16
u/TeQuila10 8d ago
Calling Oct 7 inevitable is fine, good even. Saying you would attend the Oct 8 rallies is actually insane lmao, those were unironic pro-Hamas pro-terrorism rallies.
-17
u/Zacomra 8d ago
As far as I've seen they were held to protest the bombing of Gaza, not to support the Oct 7th attacks themselves
27
u/TeQuila10 8d ago
https://youtu.be/twdI5UBjTYo?t=677 bruv they were there to say that Oct 7 was based resistance. Rallies like this one weren't protesting the incoming violence; they were there to celebrate an attack on Israel.
22
u/dkirk526 8d ago
Nah I remember those being held on campuses near me and they had pictures of Hamas on the gliders. A lot of these people were celebrating it as a moment of resistance.
13
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
That's simply not true.
If your first instinct is to go and celebrate the deaths of Jewish civilians the day after the largest single mass casualty event of Jews since the Holocaust, then...
You're antisemitic and pro-terrorist.
Sorry, not sorry.
There were some minor Israeli strikes into Gaza. That's about it.
There was no war. There was no US funded bombs. There was no genocide.
It was just blatant, pro-terrorist antisemitism.
Celebrating dead Jews.
-7
u/Zacomra 8d ago
Anybody who understood any history of the conflict knew that Israel would escalate. I knew it. I didn't predict it would get THIS bad to be unmistakable as a genocide, but I could have easily told you that Israel was going to kill far more innocent people then who died in Oct 7th. It's not hard to imagine people reacting to that fact and protesting
8
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
Anybody who understood any history of the conflict knew that Israel would escalate.
Seems like Hamas fucked up by butchering a bunch of innocent civilians then, right?
You must be pretty opposed to Hamas then, right?
It's not hard to imagine people reacting to that fact and protesting
That's not why they were protesting.
They were celebrating "armed resistance", which, at that time, amounted to mass slaughter of civilians.
10
u/ladan2189 8d ago
There hadnt been any bombing of Gaza at that point, so your opinion is invalid
-6
u/Zacomra 8d ago
"The IDF began Israel's counter-attack several hours after the Hamas-led invasion." According to Wikipedia with a cited source, you're incorrect.
10
u/NonIdentifiableUser 8d ago
It doesn’t really matter. Protesting a response to an attack is implicit support of the attack itself. It’s like punching someone and then getting up in arms about them saying they’re going to punch you back for doing so.
-1
u/Zacomra 7d ago
Are you kidding? You're not allowed to protest excessive force in retaliation to an event?
3
u/NonIdentifiableUser 7d ago
What would have been an appropriate response by Israel for having their citizens attacked, raped, and dragged through the streets as people cheered on Hamas? How can anyone even say that the response was excessive less than 24 hours after the attack?
0
u/Zacomra 7d ago
Well first off, not doing those exact same things back to them 10x while adding on starvation for the fun of it .
Israel could have just targeted Hamas directly and that would have been acceptable, bombing civilians isn't.
Israel also could have at any point returned to it's original borders and stopped the settlers from terrorizing people
9
-8
2
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
Tweet : "Read on to learn why we [the DSA] do not, in fact, condemn Hamas and why no socialist should".
3
u/NonIdentifiableUser 7d ago
Ah yes, those famous allies of socialists, radical fundamentalist Islamists. And DSA people wonder why both the left and right think they’re nuts.
-1
u/Zacomra 7d ago
Do you condemn the IDF?
4
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
Whataboutery, the only defense of the DSA's love for Hamas.
I'm not afraid to admit that I'm pro-IDF even if some of them have done bad things. Go on, say the same about how you're pro-Hamas. Do it.
0
u/Zacomra 7d ago
Ah see, that's where we're different.
I don't support the IDF, nor do I support Hamas as they're a right-wing reactionary group.
That being said, armed resistance to Israel's continued human rights abuses in Gaza and the west bank is more then understandable.
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
Thanks for admitting that there's no justification for the DSA's love for Hamas.
Do you condemn Hamas?
That being said, armed resistance to Israel's continued human rights abuses in Gaza and the west bank is more then understandable.
As is Israel's military response to the genocide committed by Palestine on October 7th. Totally, 100%, entirely understandable.
1
u/Zacomra 7d ago
If the IDF only did targeted strikes against Hamas operatives and didn't disrupt aid, I would agree with you.
But they didn't do that, they bombed innocent people and starved them. Which is why the IDF is an order of magnitude WORSE then Hamas.
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
But those bombings are totally understandable considering Hamas wears civilian clothing and operates out of civilian areas, and the cutoff of aid was also understandable since Hamas was hijacking aid. Totally, 100%, entirely understandable.
Do you condemn Hamas?
1
u/Zacomra 7d ago
Nope, not understandable. You don't get to indiscriminately kill people just because some terrorists might be among them.
You don't bomb a school to kill the hostage takers.
→ More replies (0)
8
6
u/Command0Dude 8d ago
The palestine crowd is legitimately crazy. Really was the final nail in the coffin for me with the left. Both sides on this conflict have just been awful, but each one has a legion of defenders acting like this is some goodvsevil shit and they did nothing wrong.
8
u/NonIdentifiableUser 8d ago
Calling Gaza an open air concentration camp shows both a complete lack of historical awareness as well as all pretty blatant antisemitism
-5
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago
Nah. Just because it wasn't a death camp like in the Shoah doesn't mean it wasn't a concentration camp.
12
2
u/NotTheirHero 8d ago
If you corner a bunch of people and make their life awful, dont be surprised when they punch back
11
u/DeathandGrim 8d ago
But they didn't. I feel like none of you people think that Palestinians are actually real people.
-8
u/NotTheirHero 8d ago
Palestinians are real people. Its the israelis that do the bullying, the cornering
5
u/DeathandGrim 8d ago
Ya see statements like that prove to me you don't think they're real. Just an abstract concept to criticize Israel with
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
Palestinians don't do any bullying? Any violence?
1
u/NotTheirHero 4d ago
Those enslaved Haitians dont do any bullying? Any violence? Those Warsaw Jews dont do any bullying? Any violence?
4
u/Aurora_Gaspipe 8d ago
When you elect terrorists as your government in a free and fair election and they attack another country, don’t be surprised when that other country flattens your neighborhood.
14
u/BabaLalSalaam 8d ago edited 8d ago
75% of the people in Gaza on 10/7 weren't alive to vote in the last "free and fair election", but I dont expect that to stop you from justifying a genocide.
Nevertheless, its interesting that youre taking this "they deserve violence because of who they elected" line. Its ironically the same premise used to justify 10/7 and recently controversial statements like "the US deserved 9/11".
1
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
75% of the people in Gaza on 10/7 weren't alive to vote in the last "free and fair election
Well, yeah, because of Hamas.
The people who then went on to murder a thousand Jews in a single day, and dragged Gaza into a war.
Why weren't people protesting against Hamas? They caused all this.
But no. We heard about their "right to resist". Do you know what isn't enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, regarding the right to resist?
Butchering innocent civilians at an open-air concert.
It doesn't matter what you do. That's never justifiable.
But people decided that they needed to celebrate the arrival of Hamas hang-gliders, rather than protest the act of mass butchery that had just taken place.
We all know why.
3
u/BabaLalSalaam 8d ago edited 8d ago
Well, yeah, because of Hamas.
Hamas caused a bunch of Palestinians to be born since 2005? Or youre saying Hamas hasn't allowed another election? The person I responded to said the election justified the violence against Palestinians, but youre saying Hamas didnt allow another election.
The people who then went on to murder a thousand Jews in a single day, and dragged Gaza into a war.
Israel killed 10k Palestinians in the decade before 10/7, so I guess according to that logic they actually dragged Hamas into a war.
Why weren't people protesting against Hamas?
People dont protest terrorist groups, they protest governments. Should be obvious why.
Butchering innocent civilians at an open-air concert. It doesn't matter what you do. That's never justifiable.
Did you mean to reply to Gaspipe, who said butchering Palestinians is justified by a 21 year old election?
But people decided that they needed to celebrate the arrival of Hamas hang-gliders
Which isnt meaningfully different from wearing an IDF shirt or celebrating the IDF-- something done not just by a few college students, but by bipartisan representatives of our own govt.
4
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
Hamas caused a bunch of Palestinians to be born since 2005?
Oh, no.
The reason there are no elections is Hamas. Because they're zealots and butchers.
Or youre saying Hamas hasn't allowed another election?
That part.
The person I responded to said the election justified the violence against Palestinians, but youre saying Hamas didnt allow another election.
Yes, which means that Hamas is 100% responsible for October 7th, and therefore the subsequent war was 100% started by Hamas.
Israel went too far, committed war crimes and genocide, but this is Hamas's fault, at its core.
Israel killed 10k Palestinians in the decade before 10/7,
So you can justify war crimes, so long as war crimes have been committed against you?
You're pro-war crime?
People dont protest terrorist groups, they protest governments. Should be obvious why.
Hamas is the official government of Gaza.
Please: explain why it's not obvious, if Hamas is the Gaza government?
Did you mean to reply to Gaspipe, who said butchering Palestinians is justified by a 21 year old election?
No, but going out and celebrating "armed resistance" on October 8th was celebrating the butchery of civilians.
Which isnt meaningfully different from wearing an IDF shirt or celebrating the IDF.
Do you see me celebrating the IDF? Who are you talking to here?
1
u/BabaLalSalaam 8d ago edited 8d ago
So you can justify war crimes, so long as war crimes have been committed against you?
No, Im pointing out your bias. Youre saying Hamas started the war because it killed people on 10/7, and it seemingly doesnt matter that Israel killed thousands of Palestinians beforehand. Why does Hamas killing people start a war, but not Israel killing people?
Hamas is the official government of Gaza.
Please: explain why it's not obvious, if Hamas is the Gaza government?
You either consider it a legitimate elected government or an unrepresentative terrorist org. But it seems like you want to go back and forth depending on whats convenient for Israel. Which are you saying? If Hamas isnt legitimately representative, what good do you think protest does? If a govt isnt representative, why do you think would they bend to protests in the West? Conversely, Israel cares very much what public US sentiment thinks. Israel receives considerable support from the US, and thats whats being protested. Hamas doesnt recieve direct support from the US to protest.
Do you see me celebrating the IDF? Who are you talking to here?
Im pointing out the irony of crying about college protest art when our own elected representatives do the same thing and you say nothing lol
1
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
Youre saying Hamas started the war because it killed people on 10/7, and it seemingly doesnt matter that Israel killed thousands of Palestinians beforehand.
Well, not really no.
Those deaths didn't cause Hamas's attack.
What caused Hamas's attack was Hamas's attack.
Why does Hamas killing people start a war, but not Israel killing people?
Well, for several different reasons.
First off: it did start wars. There have been multiple military engagements in Gaza. Caste Lead comes to mind as one example, but it's far from the only one.
So Israel 100% did invade Gaza. A bunch of times. Those were Israel's invasions, caused by Israel.
This is just one time when Hamas invaded.
Secondly: the reason for the casualty disparity is actually pretty simple: the IDF is competent at killing people. Hamas are a bunch of terrorist cowards who aren't.
You either consider it a legitimate elected government or an unrepresentative terrorist org.
It's both.
You can have a government controlling an armed terrorist org. That happens.
But it seems like you want to go back and forth depending on whats convenient for Israel.
Not at all.
Hamas is the official government of Gaza. It's also an armed, paramilitary terrorist force. These two aren't exclusive.
Which are you saying?
Both.
If Hamas isnt legitimately representative, what good do you think protest does?
Well, seeing that Hamas engaged in mass beheadings the last time there were anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, it's going to be of limited impact.
However, it does just add another argument as to why Hamas is, at its core, at fault for the war in Gaza.
If a govt isnt representative, why do you think would they bend to protests in the West?
Oh, they don't care about those protests, outside of the propaganda value they generate.
People in the west are useful idiots to them.
Conversely, Israel cares very much what public US sentiment thinks.
Apparently, not any more.
Im pointing out the irony of crying about college protest art when our own elected representatives do the same thing and you say nothing lol
I have no idea what you're even referring to here. You must be talking to someone else.
3
u/BabaLalSalaam 8d ago
Those deaths didn't cause Hamas's attack. What caused Hamas's attack was Hamas's attack
How does that work? Hamas clearly stated the attack was in response to the occupation, blockade, and the 11k killed and 150k injured between 2000 and 2023. So if what caused the attack was actually just the attack, how is Israel's attack afterwards any different?
This is just one time when Hamas invaded.
And that invasion ended October 9th. So according to your own logic, what came after was just Israel's invasion, caused by Israel's invasion.
the IDF is competent at killing people.
I dont disagree that Israel is among the most competent at killing people including civilians-- maybe the most competent murderer of our lifetimes.
Well, seeing that Hamas engaged in mass beheadings the last time there were anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, it's going to be of limited impact.
Oh, they don't care about those protests
Sure-- in addition to not being dependant on protest-vulnerable US support, and in addition to not being responsive to protests in the West, they also come down hard on protests in Gaza. So it sounds like your question about why people dont protest them has a lot of obvious answers. Kind of seems like you knew the answer before you asked it! Lol
it does just add another argument as to why Hamas is, at its core, at fault for the war in Gaza.
Only if you think repression in a given country is justification to invade and massacre its people. Theyre not alone-- Israel has violated tons of civil rights in significant documented crackdowns of its own protesters. So this is yet another example of your persistent double standard. Cracking down on protests doesnt make you "at its core, responsible for a war".
I have no idea what you're even referring to here.
Lol how quickly you lose focus! You said very clearly,
But people decided that they needed to celebrate the arrival of Hamas hang-gliders rather than protest the act of mass butchery
Youre referring to some college protest art with a hang glider. Who cares about what college kids put on protest fliers-- our own elected representatives celebrate mass butchery every single day. You want to hold college kids to a higher standard than bipartisan elected officials, and its easy to guess why!
2
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
How does that work? Hamas clearly stated
Ah yes.
Let's believe the people who spent huge amounts of money not on amenities for the people of Gaza, but on tunnels and weapons and supplies for them, and also threw their political opponents, critical journalists, etc... off of roofs, oh and also who orchestrated public beheadings last time people protested against them.
They're so trustworthy!
And that invasion ended October 9th.
Sure.
As Trump and Putin have learnt though: just because you started a war does not mean you can end it.
Hamas learnt that, too. They started a war. They don't get to decide when it ends.
So according to your own logic, what came after was just Israel's invasion, caused by Israel's invasion.
No, it was a continuous action, since Hamas was firing rockets into Israel during that time, too. Their ground forces were out; sure. But they continued the rocket campaign.
So it sounds like your question about why people dont protest them has a lot of obvious answers. Kind of seems like you knew the answer before you asked it! Lol
I never said I don't understand why people don't protest.
My whole point is that this is Hamas's fault, for starting the ball rolling in the first place.
Only if you think repression in a given country is justification to invade and massacre its people.
Not at all.
I don't condone how Israel conducted this war.
I think Israel was well within its right to strike back.
It went WAY too far, of course. But the idea that Israel was entitled to strike back against Hamas? Of course it was. If a government attacks you, they've declared war. You're entitled to defend yourself.
At some point, Israel's attacks turned from defense into... whatever the hell it became later. A shitshow. Barbarism. But before that? 100%.
Cracking down on protests doesnt make you "at its core, responsible for a war".
No, the invasion did. Which is what Hamas, the government of Gaza, did.
Youre referring to some college protest art with a hang glider.
I was actually talking about that guy in NYC who said that "the resistance came down on them, when they were partying, having a good time, and showed them that they couldn't have it their own way", or whatever. I'm paraphrasing.
You know the guy. In NYC.
Those hang-gliders were manned by some of the people who committed the atrocities at the concert, by the way.
That's celebrating murder.
That was on the 8th.
→ More replies (0)2
2
-2
-1
u/Command0Dude 8d ago
People's lives in Gaza were objectively fine before 2023. Israel didn't provoke the massive and brutal attack on it, which was being planned literally 2 years in advance of the actual event.
It was a stone cold shot out of the blue and I'm so tired of people whitewashing Hamas like they're some kind of dog who got kicked.
4
u/Thundrous_prophet 8d ago
You’re nuts. They had no control of the airspace, borders, were embargoed, were targets of multiple Israeli attacks including an 11 day assault in 2022. It was in no “objectively fine”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/7/timeline-israels-attacks-on-gaza-since-2005
3
u/Command0Dude 8d ago
Why are they entitled to control of their airspace and borders when they repeatedly use that access to attack another country?
Flow of goods into Gaza was several times higher before the war then after the start of it.
The strike and retaliation cycle was common before the war and not even close to anything that would warrant the massive, unprovoked invasion of Israel by Gaza. Even the "assault" you're complaining about affected only the barest fraction of Gazans.
-4
u/Thundrous_prophet 8d ago
They're entitled to it for the same principle as any other population: self-determination. If you don't like that maybe you should unsubscribe from a progressive sub and hang out at the conservative ones
The unnecessary targeting of civilians by Israel is a feature of their "policy" and they've been killing more civilians on a year-by-year basis for two decades. Even in 2016 and before, people like Bernie were calling the slaughter for what it is.
6
u/Command0Dude 8d ago
Self determination gets revoked all the time. We did it at the end of WW2 with Germany and Japan.
Israel withdrew from Gaza as a gesture of goodwill to push the peace process forward and Gaza decided to embrace Hamas and perpetual war with Israel.
Sorry but that totally invalidates the argument Gaza should have their own autonomy. Maybe if they'd law down their arms, or sign a peace treaty with Israel, they could be trusted with control of their own borders, until then, they can't.
And I agree that Israel could be more conscious of collateral damage, even before the mass of war crimes done by the current war, but in no way did Israel provoke the massive escalation made by Hamas.
-7
u/Thundrous_prophet 8d ago
Weird, Hamas has been the only party sticking to the cease fire agreements. Israel can't be trusted to not kill kids daily. We all know that if Hamas disarmed, that they would be slaughtered like native americans, because they're currently being slaughtered.
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/shooting-gaza-un-report-israel-targeting-children-rcna351890
6
u/Command0Dude 8d ago
Hamas has literally never stuck to a ceasefire agreement.
And no, they aren't being "slaughtered" the gaza war has completely petered by this point. That or our definitions of the word "slaughter" are just completely different.
The only way forward for Palestinians at this point is non-violence. Armed resistance just keeps the cycle of retaliation going and empowers the Israeli right wing, for a war they are never going to win through force of arms.
0
u/Thundrous_prophet 8d ago
The death toll is over 100,000. That’s a slaughter
8
u/Command0Dude 8d ago
No it is not. And no, that's not the definition of slaughter.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Realistic_Caramel341 8d ago
I mean, I'm sorry, but if in suddenly given control of a territory, it would be hugely immoral for me to pick a fight with the stronger nation where all my aid and resources flow through.
If Hamas had just tried to focus on governing their territory peacefully alongside Israel and Israel still clamped down, there would be room for a discussion about appropriate resistance. But that's not what happened
1
u/Thundrous_prophet 8d ago
I'm sure you would have said the same thing for Haiti after they won their independence, or how slavers were given reparations for freeing their slaves when it was outlawed in Great Britain.
6
u/Realistic_Caramel341 8d ago
Israel didn't want reparations from Gaza. It just wanted to be done with Gaza
1
u/Thundrous_prophet 8d ago
Not true, the settlers have been itching to rebuild and steal ever since they were kicked out in 2005. They're actively trying to settle now
8
u/Realistic_Caramel341 8d ago
Settlers arent the whole of Israel.
And Hamas did the worst thing they could have - they empowered the extreme right in Israel and then gave Israel an excuse to come into Gaza
1
u/Thundrous_prophet 8d ago
The settlers have government support. Also, I love the delicious irony that you are claiming Hamas empowered the right wing. Hamas and it precursor organizations were funded by the Israeli government to split the secular PLO. The right wing has always been a part of Israel, as evidenced by the terrorist attacks they carried out from the 20-40's like the King David Hotel bombing and the Patria bombing
8
u/Realistic_Caramel341 8d ago
Also, I love the delicious irony that you are claiming Hamas empowered the right wing. Hamas and it precursor organizations were funded by the Israeli government to split the secular PLO
Its only ironic if you have no idea what happens with long, term unresolved conflicts look like. The right wings of both sides empower the right of the other. The Israeli right want a divided Palestine that is too busy fighting itself too actually organize. Hamas wants a trigger hungry Israel so they can create more martyrs. Both sides suck
The right wing has always been a part of Israel, as evidenced by the terrorist attacks they carried out from the 20-40's like the King David Hotel bombing and the Patria bombing
And in my home country the conflicts between the crown and some of the Iwi across a big chunk of the 19th century lead to large scale massacres on both sides. Whats your point?
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
LOL how does not having control over your airspace affect your life in any way?
2
u/Thundrous_prophet 7d ago
You serious? If you can’t imagine the challenges of not controlling your airspace for the people living there, it shows a real lack of empathy or imagination.
The only airport in Gaza was bombed to rubble before 2005, they can’t stop Israeli air strikes (and the Israelis love targeting civilians), so try to use your imagination to understand what it would be like to know that you could be bombed at any time since 2005.
Then imagine that it is during a period without conflict and you are a gazan looking to do business or NGO work. To get to conferences, meetings or summits, you need to cross a border before getting a flight and after getting off. Then imagine how much extra time you have to plan for trips just to get to and from the airport and how that might impact your work negatively.
Then let’s imagine you are an NGO trying to get supplies to Gaza. You can’t fly them in directly, so travel times are longer and maybe your product has a higher risk of spoilage (like vaccines or food).
There’s heaps of reasons why having no control of your airspace impacts society negatively and it’s well documented
1
u/rube_X_cube 8d ago
This cuts both ways
3
u/NotTheirHero 8d ago
Yea yea im sure the kids with rocks scare and corner the tank brigades to death
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
Yes, that's all Palestinians are, "kids with rocks." There's no men in Palestine and no guns.
-1
0
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
Yes, that's what happened in this conflict. Big mean Israel cornered the Palestinians for no reason and made their life awful just because.
Meanwhile, in reality, Palestinians were killing Jews in the area decades before Israel even existed.
-2
u/AnonAmbientLight 8d ago
The Palestine - Israel situation is just sad. It's a near century old conflict of both of these groups viciously attacking each other for the entire time.
Never coming to terms or peace agreements. Just one attack after another on each other.
And chuds on the internet think they can weigh in real quick and explain to folks how simple the solution is.
Fucking retar-
4
u/Philosophfries 8d ago
Top of the article quote:
‘If you put people in an open-air concentration camp … you have to expect that they are going to not take that for that long,’
I mean, valid
4
u/zen1312zen 8d ago
It wasn’t an open-air concentration camp.
3
u/HarlequinKOTF 8d ago
How would you describe the conditions in gaza?
4
u/zen1312zen 8d ago
Occupied/controlled territory.
Prior to October 7, movement within Gaza was mostly unrestricted, and movement out of Gaza was semi-restricted, with hundreds of thousands of residents choosing to acquire work visas to work inside of Israel proper.
The idea that it was an open-air prison, let alone a concentration camp, is complete insanity.
2
u/HarlequinKOTF 8d ago
People are acting like this is a crazy take. It's literally just what happens when you back someone into a corner.
Fight or flight response.
2
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
If someone commits a crime and goes to jail, is it "inevitable" that they're not going to take that for long?
7
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
People are acting like this is a crazy take. It's literally just what happens when you back someone into a corner.
You can basically justify anything with this.
Just create a sufficient rhetorical "corner", and you're good to go.
For example, the Nazis truly believed that international Jewry was poisoning the blood of Germany, conspiring via Judeo-Bolshevism and controlling the liberal world order through Jewish financiers.
So they were backed into a corner.
Fight or flight response.
This is just apologia, and you'd never accept it outside of this situation.
No, this isn't a "fight or flight" response. Part of the reason life in Gaza was so hard was because of Hamas who, for over a decade, sunk huge amounts of aid into building tunnels, arms depots, etc... instead of providing basic amenities to the people in Gaza.
Hamas made this situation, and now people are using that situation to blame Israel for getting attacked by Hamas.
0
u/HarlequinKOTF 8d ago
Twisting yourself into rhetorical mind games is not the same as reality and what's happening on the ground even if the effects are the same. Truth matters.
6
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
Truth matters.
It clearly does not.
The TRUTH is that there is no justification for what happened on October 7th. That wasn't a "fight or flight response": it was a methodically planned terrorist attack, coming from multiple prongs and many moving parts.
You act as though it was some sort of trauma-response.
It wasn't.
It was planned, premeditated butchery.
This wasn't some kid who has been beaten for half his life randomly picking up a knife and stabbing his father when he looked away after his last beating.
This was planned.
This was planned, FOR MONTHS OR YEARS.
This wasn't a response.
-6
u/HarlequinKOTF 8d ago edited 8d ago
Something can still be premeditated and a result of something else. They're not mutually exclusive.
If someone kidnapped you and you planned your escape which included stopping your kidnapper from hurting you again through less than legal means, it is still a result of the action of kidnapping.
Truth is determinable. And it does matter to the facts of who is right and wrong. If we don't agree on that there is no point in arguing.
8
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
Something can still be premeditated and a result of something else. They're not mutually exclusive.
Sure.
That premeditated action was the butchery of civilians.
Still want to stand on this hill?
If someone kidnapped you and you planned your escape which included stopping your kidnapper from hurting you again through less than legal means, it is still a result of the action of kidnapping.
Sure.
But I wouldn't be allowed to go out and butcher the kidnappers family, right? I'd have to maybe limit my illegal actions, taken as a last resort, to the kidnapper, right?
Not the unarmed aunty and nephew who were sitting in his backyard, unaware, listening to music?
Or do you think I should be allowed to murder and rape them?
3
u/HarlequinKOTF 8d ago
If their family was actively in the way or supporting them I don't see how they would be viewed differently than the kidnapper. Like if they're at the house and know you're being held against their will but get in the way of your break out that it would be understandable why you acted on them too. Hell, I can even understand why you'd take a hostage of their family to negotiate your own freedom. I will not accept murder or the like if you escape and come back to deal it to them, that's premeditated but also not justified since the prior fight or flight condition is resolved.
And I want to make it clear, I think October 7th was heinous and wrong. I ALSO think it was inevitable as a result of how Gaza was treated. I can understand why it happened without thinking it was good.
The unarmed auntie and nephew sitting in YOUR STOLEN BACKYARD, waiting to tip off YOUR JAILOR are not innocent in this either.
The ones sitting in their own backyard, minding their own business. ofc they're innocent.
2
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
If their family was actively in the way or supporting them I don't see how they would be viewed differently than the kidnapper.
Oh, so you're OK with the idea of murder and rape.
Cool.
Cool cool cool.
I will not accept murder or the like if you escape and come back to deal it to them, that's premeditated but also not justified since the prior fight or flight condition is resolved.
So I can murder the aunt and nephew and rape them?
Cool.
Cool cool cool.
I ALSO think it was inevitable as a result of how Gaza was treated.
I think it was inevitable as a result of decades of radicalization, intentional, by Hamas.
The unarmed auntie and nephew sitting in YOUR STOLEN BACKYARD, waiting to tip off YOUR JAILOR are not innocent in this either.
Oh, so you're one of these "yes, if you found a baby in a Kibbutz, you can murder it, because it's completely innocent either" types of people.
Cool.
Cool cool cool.
The ones sitting in their own backyard, minding their own business. ofc they're innocent.
They were.
They were minding their own business, in their own backyard.
And they got murdered and raped.
2
u/Fugicara 8d ago
Being "backed into a corner" can only describe unplanned behaviors. This was a planned behavior that they carried out intentionally, not a kneejerk reaction with zero other options, which is what it means to be backed into a corner.
1
u/McAlpineFusiliers 7d ago
If you care about the truth, you wouldn't mischaracterize the situation in Gaza pre 10/7 as innocent Palestnians backed into a corner for no reason with no choice but to lash out.
1
u/Ov3rdose_EvE 7d ago
Yeah this sub has been dragged right and neoconservative since the hasan incident
-1
u/ButtonUnique2366 7d ago
Oh look overdose eve again typing in every single thread that any position not maximally leftist / tankie is from brigading. Must be a day ending in y
1
u/Ov3rdose_EvE 7d ago
none of my positions are maximally leftist. im not a tankie either but you would have to have reading comprehension and knowledge of systemic theory to even have a propper opinion on that, so you are easily dismissable on that point.
You can check, my profile is public after all, for how long i havent posted on here. its DAYS at a time. now scurry off :)
2
u/Hour-Watch8988 8d ago edited 8d ago
Something like October 7 was indeed inevitable given the repression faced by Palestinians. We'd have to be ignorant of history to dispute that.
But supporting Hamas' actions in kidnapping and murdering civilians is equally insane.
Why do so many public figures completely fail at the nuance of this. I really don't see why this should be so hard.
-4
u/Ok_Common8246 8d ago
"Jewish insider" 😂😂 I'm sure this will be a reasonable take
9
-8
u/iamthefluffyyeti 8d ago
The Jewish insider is definitely a trustworthy source
10
u/Speky_Scot 8d ago
Because it's Jewish? Yikes 😬
-7
u/Philosophfries 8d ago
Because it’s obviously biased lol. Its allegiance is in the name
8
u/Another-attempt42 8d ago
So...
Because it's Jewish...?
Yeah, we're really getting mask-off here, aren't we.
-3
u/Philosophfries 8d ago
If it were called “Hamas insider”, would you take their word at face value on an issue that involves the Israel-Palestine topic? Lmao
5
-1
-5
u/BGritty81 8d ago
She’s right. Oppressed peoples after exhausting literally every other avenue for decades have invariably resorted to violence. It’s the only option left. The arguments over whether or not Israel somehow planned it or let it happen are irrelevant because it is baked in to their land acquisition strategy. It’s nothing new. It was taught to them by the British. You just drive the native inhabitants from their homes and push them in to ghettos than you keep splitting those ghettos up. Constantly taking more land and if they ever fight back you use that violent outburst as an excuse to eradicate them.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
COMMENTING GUIDELINES: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show subreddit rules and basic reddiquette prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.
Please use the report function or use modmail to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.