Honest question: what was Hamas' long-game with respect to kidnapping Israelis? Did they think Israel would just negotiate rather than retaliate?
It just seems crazy to me given the power imbalance. A cynical part of me suspects that things are playing out exactly as some evil strategists hoped they would, which, given all the children dying, is super-depressing.
Hamas simply wants as many civilian casualties as possible. Then they’ll blame Israel and unfortunately a lot of people will buy into that, see the latest idiocy by Fridays for Future.
As always, motives vary heavily. I think many people have raised great points, and no doubt many of them are accurate enough.
It’s the same for Israel, too, right? I would imagine a two state solution is the only reasonable exit strategy, and Israel could make that happen overnight, but they haven’t. Why? Again, motives vary heavily.
I’m sorry but this is simply not correct. Some people in the Israeli government in the past have agreed to a 2-state solution, but extremist Israelis kept revolting. Yitzhak Rabim was literally assassinated by an extremist Israeli for signing and supporting the Oslo accords.
Most Israelis and Arabs recognize the need for a 2 state solution, but the Israeli government is not on board right now. And whoever makes any kind of moves in that direction gets pushed out pretty quickly.
It’s not right now, that’s true. Both sides are moving more extreme and away from a peaceful solution. But historically Arabs were far less open to the idea of two state solution. Starting with the partition plan of 1947.
But I think the important matter were the foreign ostages, especially from Europe and USA, because those countries do a lot to recover them, including paying big money.
I wondered why Israel didn’t attack the weekend they said they would attack. They gave an ultimatum, but didn’t act on it. One possibility is that the USA and Europe wanted to try to recover their ostages first.
The US never negotiates with “terrorists”, they fund “freedom fighters” to kill the terrorists and maybe recover some of the hostages.
Hamas likely wanted to force a confrontation in order to make it abundantly clear who’s paying for which “freedom fighters”… even if everyone knew for a long time, did very little about it, and is likely to do very little more either way.
This is just my opinion but, given terrorist organisations are militarily usually much poorer/smaller/weaker than the group they stand against, they need help from outside.
One way to possibly achieve that is to do something awful to provoke your opposition into a retaliation so indiscriminate and horrifying that your ideological (if not literal) allies in the surrounding area step in to attack your enemy.
I’ve heard it suggested that they didn’t expect to get as far as they did into Israel and they barely expected to get past the border wall. If that’s the case they may not have planned what to do when they did and so there may be no grand strategy behind some or all of it.
That would make a lot of sense. Since Israel has blocked numerous other attacks in the past, Hamas likely expected a similar response, not a complete lack of one from their very apparent and out in the open preparations for the attack.
I’m guessing they though they could use hostages to prevent Israel from just bombing everything and everyone in Gaza as revenge and possibly also trade for something. Too bad Israel gave no shit about hostages and are just bombing everyone anyways, hostages or not.
The idea behind most terrorism is that a weaker opponent provokes a larger, more powerful one into making a political/strategic mistake.
For example, 9/11 wasn’t about knocking down some towers, it was about getting the US entangled in a foreign war with boots on the ground.
For this attack, when Israel invades gaza with armour and soldiers, a LOT of people on both sides will die. Every dead gazan will be a martyr, every dead Israeli solider is, well a dead Israeli. Maybe that retribution becomes too much for the international community, maybe the scenes that will inevitably come from gaza will ignite the Arab world etc.
I think this might be giving the attackers too much credit for strategy. Don’t discount the simple religious aspect: don’t make the mistake of refusing to believe that devout religious people don’t actually believe their own religion.
Take ISIS. A whole lot of their actions made almost no sense, from a strategic point of view: picking fights with everybody, massacring civilians instead of letting them flee, destroying ancient artifacts (instead of either preserving or selling them) if you omit the simple explanation of religion. They wanted to trigger the final, apocalyptic battle that would usher in the end of the world. They said exactly that in their social media videos, but we secular atheists (or non-devout believers) just kinda skipped over that detail.
Things aren’t as clearly religious in the case of the Palestinians, but probably plays some role. Same with the Israeli Right, and the American Right with their unconditional support for Israel. We shouldn’t ignore the impact of religious belief.
In short, the only people who truly know are Hamas, and the best the rest of us can do is speculate.
Some possibilities are that Hamas wanted to sabotage normalizing relations between Israel and the rest of the Muslim world, that Hamas wanted to bait Israel into a wildly disproportionate response that would garner themselves sympathy and recruits, that Hamas was bluffing and feigning strength and counting on Israel to think the attack was bait, that Hamas was just acting on bloodlust and wanted to attack regardless of the consequences, or many other possibilities.
Further, we focus a lot on the substative issues, i.e., the grievances and disagreements at hand, but we don’t talk about the bargaining frictions nearly enough. There are countless border disputes around the world, and yet they rarely result in war. Why? Because war is costly and most wish to avoid it. War typically happens when there are both substantive issues and bargaining frictions, i.e., things preventing the two sides from negotiating a solution. But us onlookers can’t even know for sure what these frictions are, only speculate.
All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won’t be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn’t actually know with any degree of certainty. Nobody but Hamas actually knows.
I do recommend watching the full video above, as the professor is very engaging, rather amusing, and covers this topic quite thoroughly.
All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won’t be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn’t actually know with any degree of certainty
That’s one of the most reasonable responses to this madness I’ve seen recently.
Far too many people are out there demanding instant information with 100% accuracy and crying conspiracy when they can’t get their impossible wish.
I think even worse than the expectation of instant knowledge is the expectation that everyone must pick a side and must do it now. There are dozens of conflicts around the world with atrocities being committed, but this is the only one you consistently get called out for not picking a side.
I think it's healthy for people outside of the conflict to ultimately feel one side has more or less justification, while still acknowledging their faults and mistakes.
My experience is actually quite the opposite. In (real world) discussions I had so far I see that most people just talk about the horrific consequences of this war, with so many innocent casualties on both sides. People are often _not _ picking sides because this is such an old and complex conflict with atrocities perpetrated on both sides. Which imho is the most reasonable thing to do. Yes, what Hamas did on that festival and is it still doing is disgusting, but Israel’s response since then is equally disgusting. It’s just impossible to condemn one side while excusing the other.
Yeah, I’ve had some nauseating back and forth with several users who just can’t seem to grasp the notion that criticising Israel does not mean you support Hamas.
I am woefully ignorant on the politics and history of the region and it’s people.
Recognizing this, I cannot lay my support for either side. Somehow, to many this is an incorrect stance and I must have an opinion and pick a side.
It would take considerable time and effort to learn the background and create an informed independent opinion as I do not trust the news to give me an unbiased report of the war. It would be unrealistic to think everyone can do this, and so I think we should normalize people not taking a side.
All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won’t be known for a while, if ever.
This is what we’ve all been thinking about Russia/Putin’s government too. With tons of friends and family in Russia and Ukraine we are still at a loss what exactly the idea/projected outcome/strategy/expectation was to start that war. I hear a lot of armchair experts and amateur war psychologists trying to explain it away like it is obvious but it just isn’t. It feels like there are a bunch of clues and pieces of a puzzle mixed in with random puzzle pieces that don’t belong to what you are trying to assemble, and it is unclear whether we will ever truly understand it sometime in the future.
My statement is about the relationship between sides, in reference to part of the previous comment, illustrated by what I recalled of a recent event, and how it ties into it.
If you want similar examples from different sides, you’ll find plenty of them both these days and throughout history, I just happened to recall this one.
I don’t think Hamas had a long term goal here. I think Iran had the long term goal and shared intel with them and goaded the on to the attack. That’s not to excuse anything or one, but in terms of startegy and blowback, I think Irans the one whos counting on that, and Israel is providing it. So all in all I’d say Iran got what they wanted and we’re gonna see what they choose to do next.
Last time it worked, they got over a thousand prisoners for one soldier.
Taking hostages was the one thing about the entire attack that made some logical sense.
The murdering, on the other hand… that guaranteed a violent response, and doing it in the most brutal way possible and then filming it and bragging about it ensured that Palestine lost most sympanties, and Israel basically got a free pass to do whatever they wanted.
I wouldn’t say that Israel is getting a free pass, but they sure as hell have a casus belli now, and they’re getting as much mileage out of it as they possibly can.
They’ve killed dozens of journalists and even the family of a journalist. That family was staying in a building that was marked safe by the IDF for exactly these kinds of people. The US didnt let Saudi Arabia live down the bonesaw incident for years, have you heard any ranking politician in the US speak about the press slaughter? To me it seems a lot like a free pass.
So the history of Israel and it's neighbors is long and complex. A short summary might be that when Israel was formed none of its neighbors recognized it as a state and invaded. Over the years there has been significant conflict, with wrongs perpetuated on both sides. Eventually Egypt and Jordan officially recognized Israel as a state and began a long period of normalization of relations between the two.
The remaining neighbors, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank are more complicated. Gaza elected Hamas who has sworn to destroy Israel. West Bank and the Palestinian authority has negotiated over the years with Israel, and in my opinion been treated poorly. Syria and Lebanon (with Hezbollah) still refuse to acknowledge Israel as a state and vow to fight it until it's destruction.
Behind all of this is Iran, who funds and coordinates training and resources for the various Arab groups fighting against Israel. The ongoing terrorist activity in the region makes it almost impossible for a true negotiation to occur and a transfer of stewardship of the three districts in the West Bank to full Palestinian governance.
So why does Hamas invade and take hostages? Because they have seen ongoing efforts to normalize relations between Arab countries and Israel, including with Saudi Arabia, and that is exactly what they don't want. Remember, they only exist to destroy Israel. That is their entire governance platform. By provoking Israel to invade, it creates unrest in the region, staining relations between Arab leaders and Israel. Which is what Hamas wants.
The take away should be that religious ethnic states are a humanitarian and diplomatic mess. There are no easy answers or solutions when the platform of one country is that the other country must cease to exist. Likewise, Israel just can't get out of its own way with respect to exacerbating tensions via settlers in the West Bank and occupation of the Golan heights. Though to be fair, the Golan heights were captured, like the West Bank, after the countries who controlled them attacked Israel in the six day war.
So to answer your question, yes, this is all playing out like someone wanted. That someone is Hamas.
You left out a critical part at the beginning though.
Before WW1, the area now known as Israel was inhabited mostly by Arabs with a tiny Jewish minority (there where fewer Jews there than Christians) and controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
During WW1, the Brits promised the Arabs, that they’d get independence if they revolt and kick out the Ottomans. The Arabs held up their end of the deal, and in turn, the Brits, being Brits, turned around and took the area (by now called Mandatory Palestine) under control “until such time as they are able to stand alone”.
And then, in 1917, they promised the Jews the same area, after the plan to create Israel in eastern Uganda fell through.
The Jews where settlers that where put there by an occupying force that betrayed their promise to the local population.
How would you react if an occupying force would move millions of settlers into your country / state?
The initial plan wasn’t to give the entire area to the Jews, it was to give some share of it (20% of the land, is the figure I heard). That area is the only place the Jews could really conceivably lay claim to. And the Arabs (specifically the Sharif of Mecca, not the people of Palestine) got huge swaths of land in exchange for their revolt against the Ottomans: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. The British made a specific exception for coastal areas, and there’s debate about whether Palestine was part of that or not.
So…not that simple.
edit: Guys, downvotes for strong opinions are one thing. Debate is fine. I’m happy to reconsider in the face of mistakes. You could recast the same facts from the perspective of the average Palestinian, then or now. But downvotes for paraphrasing Wikipedia? That’s the equivalent of plugging your ears and saying “LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!”
Palestinian leadership agrees to peace terms they may not like, returns the remaining hostages, and enforces pacification effectively. It's the only viable path to peace I can see.
The peace terms they dont like is gaza gets exterminated. This was a situation before the Hamas attack, palestinians being killed and their land taken. Israel will accept no peace that includes palestinians existing.
the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of regimes deemed to be hostile as a measure calculated to deny combatants the use of that infrastructure and endorses the employment of "disproportionate force" to secure that end.
It's not about extermination/killing, if that were their goal there would be no Palestine. Israel certainly has the means to turn the entire place into rubble immediately if maximizing civilian deaths were their goal as you claim. Although collateral damage certainly happens in Dahiya strikes, they are clearly calculated to provide both carrots and sticks to disincentivize violence and protect themselves, not to kill the most civilians possible.
However, I suspect annexing land from Hamas controlled Gaza probably is their goal at this point. That seems totally reasonable given that:
If the leadership of next town over kept on killing civilians in my town with guerilla attacks, was constantly defeated in conventional conflicts, yet refused to negotiate for viable peace, a reasonable person would want that hostile population moved away from them for safety and security. Is this genocide? I don't think so, because the goal is not to destroy an ethnic group (20% of Israeli citizens with full rights are of Palestinian/Arab descent.) it is to keep a hostile foreign territory from literally killing your people. It is annexation of territory, which is a consequence of war.
Just as there were many innocent civilians in Nazi Germany that suffered because of the regime that was in charge there, so too are Gazans suffering because the government they live under started conflicts they could not hope to win. Just as things got better for Germany when they pacified themselves, so too could they improve for Palestine, but only if concessions are made. Otherwise they will keep losing and things will be made worse and worse until they are left with nothing. I hope they are willing to surrender and negotiate for peace before then, because this is not a war they can win militarily.
Lots of things to address in your links. The fact that that is no longer the Hamas charter, the current charter recognizes the israeli state territory.
From the link on Israel disengagement
The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.[5] This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars.[6] Following the withdrawal, Israel continues to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.
They never actually disengaged, and have killed a lot of palestinians through this humanitarian nightmare theyve enforced.
And that is quite some revision to the 1948 arab israeli war. It was palestinian territory and israel were the invaders, that was the beginning of the killing and exiling of palestinians from their own land. From the modern day fraction of territory palestinians now have, and the massive death toll of palestinians, you can see how that has proceeded over time. Any resistance to this extermination just gets used as justification to continue it.
You gave me a lot to respond to. Since reply length is limited to 5k characters, I must break up my reply into several posts:
that is no longer the Hamas charter, the current charter recognizes the israeli state territory.
You trust Hamas when they say they changed their tune? I don't. How can you claim they are not genocidal when Hamas just launched a genocidal attack where they murdered as many civilians as possible? That's what caused this most recent outbreak of war.
Hamas' new charter sill calls for Palestine to claim all of Israel in Article 2:
On May 1, 2017, Hamas issued a revised charter. Gone were the “vague religious rhetoric and outlandish utopian pronouncements” of the earlier document, according to analysis prepared for the Institute of Palestine Studies. Instead, the new charter was redolent of “straightforward and mostly pragmatic political language” that had “shifted the movement’s positions and policies further toward the spheres of pragmatism and nationalism as opposed to dogma and Islamism.” Nonetheless, the analyst was struck by “the movement’s adherence to its founding principles” alongside newly crafted, “carefully worded” language suggesting moderation and flexibility.
Israel immediately dismissed the group’s effort to promote a kinder, gentler image of its once avowedly bloodthirsty agenda. “Hamas is attempting to fool the world, but it will not succeed,” a spokesperson from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office predicted.
In fact, the new document differs little from its predecessor. Much like the original, the new document asserts Hamas’s long-standing goal of establishing a sovereign, Islamist Palestinian state that extends, according to Article 2, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Lebanese border to the Israeli city of Eilat—in other words, through the entirety of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. And it is similarly unequivocal about “the right of return” of all Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars (Article 12)—which is portrayed as “a natural right, both individual and collective,” divinely ordained and “inalienable.” That right, therefore “cannot be dispensed with by any party, whether Palestinian, Arab or international,” thus again rendering negotiations or efforts to achieve any kind of political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians irrelevant, void, or both. Article 27 forcefully reinforces this point: “There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital.” source - archival link because paywall
It was palestinian territory and israel were the invaders, that was the beginning of the killing and exiling of palestinians from their own land.
Diaspora Jews would be better classified as refugees than invaders before hostilities began. They started out legally purchasing land in Palestine, not killing and exiling people for it.
among the first recorded violent incidents between Arabs and the newly immigrated Jews in Palestine was the accidental shooting death of an Arab man in Safed, during a wedding in December 1882, by a Jewish guard of the newly formed Rosh Pinna. In response, about 200 Arabs descended on the Jewish settlement throwing stones and vandalizing property. Another incident happened in Petah Tikva, where in early 1886 the Jewish settlers demanded that their tenants vacate the disputed land and started encroaching on it. On March 28, a Jewish settler crossing this land was attacked and robbed of his horse by Yahudiya Arabs, while the settlers confiscated nine mules found grazing in their fields, though it is not clear which incident came first and which was the retaliation. The Jewish settlers refused to return the mules, a decision viewed as a provocation. The following day, when most of the settlement's men folk were away, fifty or sixty Arab villagers attacked Petach Tikva, vandalizing houses and fields and carrying off much of the livestock. Four Jews were injured and a fifth, an elderly woman with a heart condition, died four days later.
By 1908, thirteen Jews had been killed by Arabs, with four of them killed in what Benny Morris calls "nationalist circumstances", the others in the course of robberies and other crimes. In the next five years twelve Jewish settlement guards were killed by Arabs. Settlers began to speak more and more of Arab "hatred" and "nationalism" lurking behind the increasing depredations, rather than mere "banditry".
An accidental death that could have been resolved legally instead resulted in mob violence by Arab Palestinians against Jews.
They could have lived together in peace but Arab Palestinians started civilian violence, refused to make concessions, and outright rejected this two-state solution. (Look at the map and see how much more land they would have today had they accepted this plan instead of going to war.)
So, in summary, Arab Palestinian Nationalists took a hardline position early on, blamed Jewish immigrants for their problems, instigated violence against them, refused a two-state solution, then went to war with the Zionists, losing spectacularly. While they have successfully portrayed themselves as victims to many on the internet who have more sympathy for the underdog, the realpolitik situation of the conflict they started does not seem winnable. There were many points in this conflict where diplomacy, restraint, and concession would have led to a different outcome.
Once the conflict was started atrocities happened on both sides, (most notably by Irgun on the Zionist side,) but let's not forget how it started, or for that matter who can end it today without more lives lost.
From the modern day fraction of territory palestinians now have, and the massive death toll of palestinians, you can see how that has proceeded over time.
Not well, at this rate their constant belligerence and hostility seems to be leading to them losing everything.
Any resistance to this extermination just gets used as justification to continue it.
Again, if modern Israel wanted extermination, they have had the means to do so for some time. I believe you are misrepresenting their position and their goals.
Refugees should have been taken in by allies, they all went to one place due to Zionism, from the beginning with a goal of claiming their holy land. From your link, most of the land purchased was not from Palestinians, the area was under British mandate. From the beginning Palestinians resisted Jewish immigration, they did not consent to any of this, and all of their fears have proven true with time.
I mean legality doesnt mean much when youre talking about unwanted colonialist rule
And 100% all of this stems from zionism. They had to live in the holy land, people were there already, so they killed or exiled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.
legality doesnt mean much when youre talking about unwanted colonialist rule
Are you suggesting that no real estate sales were valid while the British were in charge? What about when it was the Ottoman Turks that were colonizing it, should we ignore all property rights from that period, too? How many local people need to object to immigrants owning property before you support violence against the immigrants and denial of their property rights?
And 100% all of this stems from zionism. They had to live in the holy land, people were there already, so they killed or exiled hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.
The 1948 UN borders had Jerusalem in neither state's territory. Palestine went to war over it. If they lose the holy land to Israel, this is why.
If it was a palestinian government representing palestinians, and they decided it was okay to allow this planned ethnostate orfanization to buy property en masse, i wouldnt have much to argue about. But it wasnt a palestinian government, this decision was against the will of the people living there, which is what i care about.
And man, 700,000 palestinians were killed or exiled from where they were. That cannot happen if youre the invading army. Israel went to war over it and captured palestinian land.
A lot of that 700,000 voluntarily left. Arab Palestinians who stayed behind the Israeli 1948 borders, were not driven from their land and remained peaceful currently have full citizenship rights in Israel and so do their descendants. This makes it not an ethnostate as there are multiple ethnicities living in Israel with full rights. (Citation above)
Not liking your government doesn't nullify every legal action it takes.
The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel. This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars.
Is blockading a hostile territory the same as occupation? Israel asserts it isn't. Generally, occupied lands means the occupying force installs the leadership, like in Vichy France, or has their military in charge. Israel didn't do this after they withdrew. They removed their troops from within Gaza's borders, forcibly relocated their settlers, and let Gazans elect their own leadership, (they chose Hamas, who as cited above is dedicated to Israel's complete destruction.) Giving Gaza more leeway and freedom by withdrawing didn't seem to work out well for Israel, and they understandably have refused to lift the blockade while Hamas remains in power there.
While it's true that the IDF remains in control of many things in Gaza due to the blockade and Gaza's reliance on Israel for power and supplies, if one sees Gaza as an unyielding belligerent that remains hostile rather than an already conquered foe, it changes the situation somewhat. This isn't punishing those who have already surrendered. They have lost every war yet keep killing Israelis, militarizing to the best of their abilities, refusing to concede, despite being aware of these dependances on Israel and the obvious consequences of attacks. If one sees Gaza as a hostile enemy that refuses to surrender in a war that has been ongoing for over a century now then blockades, sanctions, and all manner of economic carrots and sticks are acts of self-defense, tactics that are common in wartime. While they undoubtedly lead to civilian suffering that's not the point. Pacification with carrots and sticks is the point, like other nation-states often do.
According to Eyal Benvenisti, occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition". source
What's happened in Gaza certainly seems to be a loss of effective control, and Israel has transferred authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition, (Hamas.)
Is blockading a hostile territory the same as occupation?
to the extent Israel does it, yes. This isn't like US border patrol with Mexico, Palestine is split in two and Israel does not allow movement between them. Imagine Canada blockading all travel to and from Alaska, including international trade. Now imagine that Alaska has much of its infrastructure destroyed by Canada, to a degree causing humanitarian crisis. Then imagine that even humanitarian aid is prevented from entering. Now you have an Alaska occupied by Canada, America does not have control of that Alaska anymore. Throw in some actual land capture over time as well.
It's hard to make that analogy work given the relative sizes, distances, geographies, and geopolitical conditions in North America, but let's try to make it fit:
Actually I think this analogy might work better with Native American reservations broken up and separated geographically within the US. They too are sovereign territories but not generally recognized as nations. They too had their lands occupied and were forcibly moved. Is the US still occupying these territories? After all, all goods that flow to reservations must go through US territory and are generally subject to US laws.
Israel could turn Gaza into a lifeless parking lot in an hour if they actually wanted to. They don't.
I won't pretend that their demands have always been reasonable, but they have made peace proposals that do not demand Palestinians not existing. You're letting your emotions talk way ahead of anything remotely factual.
Israel could also stop the annexation of Palestinian land and the murders of Palestinian civilians, but doesn’t
The only reason Israel hasn’t wiped out Gaza and the West Bank and taken those areas as part of Israel is that they believe that a full-on intense genocide would be too much for the world to let go. Whether or not that fear is true is something we may find out now in Gaza
Exactly, so many people in this thread comment like Israel was just some super peaceful country. HAMAS did what it did exactly because there would be no long term-effect, Israel didn’t want Palestine to exist in the first place.
Well if you target Hamas but bomb an innocent family of five killing three, you probably just made two new Hamas members. Especially if the parents didn’t survive, they know exactly whos gonna ‘take care’ of those orphaned kids.
Add comment