Listen, @ComicDaveSmith, from the very first time I heard of you, when you "debated" @DouglasKMurraym, you’ve consistently proven how ignorant you are about everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
🧵In this thread, I will try to educate you, and the useful idiots who think you're an authority on the subject.
I’m Jordanian. I lived in the region. I was shaped by this conflict. I’m a former Muslim who understands its true nature. I don’t have high hopes that you’ll change your mind, but maybe those who blindly listen to you will.
(1) A brief breakdown of the history of the conflict.
By the late 18th century, Jewish communities were present in the land, not in overwhelming numbers, but they had maintained a continuous presence.
The land was not heavily populated, only a mix of Arabs, Jews, Christians, Druze, and others living in scattered communities with no real national identity.
There were no "Palestinians." No "Lebanese." No "Syrians" in the modern sense. These identities didn’t exist yet.
Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, didn’t start this movement because of some divine mandate. His motivation wasn’t biblical, his intent wasn't colonial, it was survival.
European pogroms and antisemitism were tearing Jewish communities apart, and he saw the need for a Jewish homeland as a matter of life and death.
By the late 19th century, Jews began migrating back to the land in greater numbers, legally purchasing land from absentee Ottoman landlords. They weren’t invading with weapons, they were buying property and building something out of nothing.
Tel Aviv was founded in 1909. Haifa’s port was developed between 1910 and 1912. Swamps were drained, fields were cultivated, cities were built.
As Jewish settlements grew, so did Arab migration into those areas, because the Jews were bringing jobs, infrastructure, and healthcare.
The Arabs weren’t being displaced. They were moving toward Jewish communities because life was better there.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised a Jewish homeland, wasn’t unique. The French also backed Lebanese Christians, promising them a state. The Brits promised Iraq to Arab allies, and Jordan to Prince Abdallah.
The Europeans were trying to implement their nation-state model in a region that had never operated that way.
For the Jews, the British Mandate was an opportunity.
They had been buying land, building cities, and now had international recognition of their efforts. They weren’t doing anything different from the Lebanese, Syrians, or Iraqis, everyone was scrambling to stake their claim in the post-Ottoman chaos.
But for Muslims, this was existential. For the first time in Islamic history, there was no caliphate. The Ottoman sultan was gone. The Muslim world was lost, leaderless, and to add insult to injury, a Jewish state was rising in the heart of the Middle East.
Lebanon, a Christian-majority state at the time, got the same hostility. But the Christians eventually caved under pressure. The Jews didn’t.
The Muslim Brotherhood saw an opportunity and took it, using religious fury to rally Arabs against the Jews.
Before the 1940s, "Palestinian" didn’t mean "Arab." It meant anyone, Jew or Arab, who lived in the British Mandate of Palestine.
Jews in Tel Aviv were called Palestinians. But the Brotherhood rebranded it as an exclusively Arab identity, erasing the Jewish history tied to the land.
The Jews, like the Lebanese and Syrians, fought to shake off British colonial rule. They declared independence in 1948.
The Arabs rejected every peace deal, starting with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which would have given them their own state alongside a Jewish state, all the way up to Their rejection of Camp David in 2000, when Israel offered them 96% of the West Bank and Gaza, and 4% of Israel.
They never wanted a state. They wanted to erase Israel. That’s why every single offer was turned down.
Arab leaders didn’t actually care about the Palestinians. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all used the Palestinian cause for their own political gain.
Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt flirted with recognizing Israel when he needed Western weapons. When the U.S. denied him, he turned to the Soviets and ramped up anti-Israel rhetoric.
Saudi King Faisal saw Nasser as a threat and pumped money into the Muslim Brotherhood’s causes, not out of love for Palestinians, but to undermine his Arab rival.
And the so-called Palestinian flag was originally used in the failed 1958 Jordan-Iraq federation, before it was repurposed as a Palestinian nationalist symbol in 1963.
There was no Palestinian nation before that, just a movement searching for branding.
The Arabs didn’t lose their homeland in 1948. They lost a war they started to take one that was never theirs.
This was never about land. It was never about occupation.
If it were, why did Muslim-majority nations persecute Jews long before Zionism? Why were 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab lands in 1948? Why did Muhammad himself declare that “no two religions can exist in Arabia”?
Because this isn’t a geopolitical dispute. It’s a religious and ideological war.
The Jews built a nation from nothing, reclaimed their homeland, and refused to be erased.
And that’s why this conflict rages on, because Israel exists, and for many in the Islamic world, that is an unforgivable offense.
🧵In this thread, I will try to educate you, and the useful idiots who think you're an authority on the subject.
I’m Jordanian. I lived in the region. I was shaped by this conflict. I’m a former Muslim who understands its true nature. I don’t have high hopes that you’ll change your mind, but maybe those who blindly listen to you will.
(1) A brief breakdown of the history of the conflict.
By the late 18th century, Jewish communities were present in the land, not in overwhelming numbers, but they had maintained a continuous presence.
The land was not heavily populated, only a mix of Arabs, Jews, Christians, Druze, and others living in scattered communities with no real national identity.
There were no "Palestinians." No "Lebanese." No "Syrians" in the modern sense. These identities didn’t exist yet.
Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, didn’t start this movement because of some divine mandate. His motivation wasn’t biblical, his intent wasn't colonial, it was survival.
European pogroms and antisemitism were tearing Jewish communities apart, and he saw the need for a Jewish homeland as a matter of life and death.
By the late 19th century, Jews began migrating back to the land in greater numbers, legally purchasing land from absentee Ottoman landlords. They weren’t invading with weapons, they were buying property and building something out of nothing.
Tel Aviv was founded in 1909. Haifa’s port was developed between 1910 and 1912. Swamps were drained, fields were cultivated, cities were built.
As Jewish settlements grew, so did Arab migration into those areas, because the Jews were bringing jobs, infrastructure, and healthcare.
The Arabs weren’t being displaced. They were moving toward Jewish communities because life was better there.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised a Jewish homeland, wasn’t unique. The French also backed Lebanese Christians, promising them a state. The Brits promised Iraq to Arab allies, and Jordan to Prince Abdallah.
The Europeans were trying to implement their nation-state model in a region that had never operated that way.
For the Jews, the British Mandate was an opportunity.
They had been buying land, building cities, and now had international recognition of their efforts. They weren’t doing anything different from the Lebanese, Syrians, or Iraqis, everyone was scrambling to stake their claim in the post-Ottoman chaos.
But for Muslims, this was existential. For the first time in Islamic history, there was no caliphate. The Ottoman sultan was gone. The Muslim world was lost, leaderless, and to add insult to injury, a Jewish state was rising in the heart of the Middle East.
Lebanon, a Christian-majority state at the time, got the same hostility. But the Christians eventually caved under pressure. The Jews didn’t.
The Muslim Brotherhood saw an opportunity and took it, using religious fury to rally Arabs against the Jews.
Before the 1940s, "Palestinian" didn’t mean "Arab." It meant anyone, Jew or Arab, who lived in the British Mandate of Palestine.
Jews in Tel Aviv were called Palestinians. But the Brotherhood rebranded it as an exclusively Arab identity, erasing the Jewish history tied to the land.
The Jews, like the Lebanese and Syrians, fought to shake off British colonial rule. They declared independence in 1948.
The Arabs rejected every peace deal, starting with the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which would have given them their own state alongside a Jewish state, all the way up to Their rejection of Camp David in 2000, when Israel offered them 96% of the West Bank and Gaza, and 4% of Israel.
They never wanted a state. They wanted to erase Israel. That’s why every single offer was turned down.
Arab leaders didn’t actually care about the Palestinians. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all used the Palestinian cause for their own political gain.
Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt flirted with recognizing Israel when he needed Western weapons. When the U.S. denied him, he turned to the Soviets and ramped up anti-Israel rhetoric.
Saudi King Faisal saw Nasser as a threat and pumped money into the Muslim Brotherhood’s causes, not out of love for Palestinians, but to undermine his Arab rival.
And the so-called Palestinian flag was originally used in the failed 1958 Jordan-Iraq federation, before it was repurposed as a Palestinian nationalist symbol in 1963.
There was no Palestinian nation before that, just a movement searching for branding.
The Arabs didn’t lose their homeland in 1948. They lost a war they started to take one that was never theirs.
This was never about land. It was never about occupation.
If it were, why did Muslim-majority nations persecute Jews long before Zionism? Why were 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab lands in 1948? Why did Muhammad himself declare that “no two religions can exist in Arabia”?
Because this isn’t a geopolitical dispute. It’s a religious and ideological war.
The Jews built a nation from nothing, reclaimed their homeland, and refused to be erased.
And that’s why this conflict rages on, because Israel exists, and for many in the Islamic world, that is an unforgivable offense.
(2)
You cited the "Palestinians' inability to vote" as proof that Israel is an apartheid state.
This is what happens when you're completely ignorant about the conflict, yet still believed by useful idiots to be an expert on the topic.
Palestinians do not vote in Israeli elections for the same reason that Canadians don’t vote in U.S. elections, they are governed by their own authorities.
The last time Palestinians in Gaza had an election, they elected Hamas. In the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority is now entering the 19th year of his 4-year term.
The 2 million Arab citizens of Israel, not Palestinians, but Arab Israelis, vote in Israeli elections. They serve in the Knesset. They sit on the Supreme Court.
Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 after a defensive war triggered by its Arab neighbors' declaration of annihilation.
It wasn’t an unprovoked land grab. It was a survival necessity. A return to 1967 borders would leave Israel 9 miles wide at its narrowest point, a strategic death trap.
Yet, in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.
As for the West Bank, Israeli military presence remains a security necessity, not a colonial project
A Palestinian state today would become a terror outpost tomorrow, another Gaza, this time overlooking Tel Aviv and the narrow coastal strip that holds 70% of Israel’s population.
If Israel is an apartheid state, it's the worst one in history.
You cited the "Palestinians' inability to vote" as proof that Israel is an apartheid state.
This is what happens when you're completely ignorant about the conflict, yet still believed by useful idiots to be an expert on the topic.
Palestinians do not vote in Israeli elections for the same reason that Canadians don’t vote in U.S. elections, they are governed by their own authorities.
The last time Palestinians in Gaza had an election, they elected Hamas. In the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority is now entering the 19th year of his 4-year term.
The 2 million Arab citizens of Israel, not Palestinians, but Arab Israelis, vote in Israeli elections. They serve in the Knesset. They sit on the Supreme Court.
Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 after a defensive war triggered by its Arab neighbors' declaration of annihilation.
It wasn’t an unprovoked land grab. It was a survival necessity. A return to 1967 borders would leave Israel 9 miles wide at its narrowest point, a strategic death trap.
Yet, in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza.
As for the West Bank, Israeli military presence remains a security necessity, not a colonial project
A Palestinian state today would become a terror outpost tomorrow, another Gaza, this time overlooking Tel Aviv and the narrow coastal strip that holds 70% of Israel’s population.
If Israel is an apartheid state, it's the worst one in history.
(3)
You claimed that Israel's military actions are what radicalize Palestinians.
Did the Yazidis do anything to “radicalize” ISIS before they were beheaded and sold into slavery?
Did the Christians in Mosul provoke their own ethnic cleansing?
Did the Alawites in Syria, who were slaughtered by Sunni jihadists last month, bring it on themselves through poor counterinsurgency tactics?
They were massacred because they existed. Because the ideology said they deserved to be destroyed.
It’s the same thing with Hamas.
Israel didn’t create jihadism. It didn’t write the verses about killing Jews. It didn’t write the Hadith that says “the Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews.” It didn’t put "death to the Jews" in Hamas’s charter.
Radicalization precedes retaliation.
The hatred was already there. It was nurtured in schools, in sermons, in summer camps.
What Israel does is defend itself from the outcome of that indoctrination. If Israel doesn’t use force, there will be no Israel.
you seem to believe that if the IDF just took a break, Palestinians would grow up writing thank-you cards to the Jews.
Tell that to the families of the Christians massacred in Damour, Lebanon by Palestinian factions.
Tell that to the Copts in Egypt who endure daily persecution, not because of Israel, but because of religious supremacism baked into the worldview that fuels these movements.
The hatred of Jews in these circles isn’t about settlements or borders. It’s about theology. It’s about the belief that Jews are inherently cursed, that they must be subjugated, converted, or eliminated.
You claimed that Israel's military actions are what radicalize Palestinians.
Did the Yazidis do anything to “radicalize” ISIS before they were beheaded and sold into slavery?
Did the Christians in Mosul provoke their own ethnic cleansing?
Did the Alawites in Syria, who were slaughtered by Sunni jihadists last month, bring it on themselves through poor counterinsurgency tactics?
They were massacred because they existed. Because the ideology said they deserved to be destroyed.
It’s the same thing with Hamas.
Israel didn’t create jihadism. It didn’t write the verses about killing Jews. It didn’t write the Hadith that says “the Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews.” It didn’t put "death to the Jews" in Hamas’s charter.
Radicalization precedes retaliation.
The hatred was already there. It was nurtured in schools, in sermons, in summer camps.
What Israel does is defend itself from the outcome of that indoctrination. If Israel doesn’t use force, there will be no Israel.
you seem to believe that if the IDF just took a break, Palestinians would grow up writing thank-you cards to the Jews.
Tell that to the families of the Christians massacred in Damour, Lebanon by Palestinian factions.
Tell that to the Copts in Egypt who endure daily persecution, not because of Israel, but because of religious supremacism baked into the worldview that fuels these movements.
The hatred of Jews in these circles isn’t about settlements or borders. It’s about theology. It’s about the belief that Jews are inherently cursed, that they must be subjugated, converted, or eliminated.
(4)
You said that Israel can’t morally or legally escape responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza.
Well, Israel’s war in Gaza is a moral dilemma engineered by Hamas.
Imagine a trolley is speeding down a track. Five people are tied to the rails ahead. You have one chance to pull a lever that will redirect the trolley to another track, but on that track, one person is tied down.
Ethically, you face an impossible decision: do you let the trolley run over the five, or do you pull the lever and sacrifice one to save them?
Most people, after weighing the situation, would pull the lever, saving the five lives at the cost of one.
Now, let’s take it further.
What if that one person is your own child, and the five are strangers? What would you do then?
This is where Israel stands.
Hamas kidnapped Israel’s child and tied him to the tracks. Not only that, but Hamas also tied five Palestinians to the other track.
So now, what should Israel do?
Should Israel pull the lever and save the five Palestinians, sacrificing its own people?
Or should Israel save its own people and let the Palestinians die in the process?
Hamas hides behind civilians. They store weapons in hospitals, launch rockets from schools, and turn neighborhoods into human shields.
Hamas forces Israel into impossible decisions. If Israel targets Hamas, Palestinian civilians, whom Hamas intentionally puts in harm’s way, are killed.
Hamas ensures Israel gets blamed. No matter what happens, Hamas has rigged the game so that the world condemns Israel for defending itself.
Israel does not want Palestinian civilians to die. It warns them before strikes. It allows humanitarian aid. It adheres to international law far more than any other military in history.
But Hamas deliberately engineers Palestinian casualties to weaponize them against Israel.
This is not war as the world understands it. This is a terrorist organization holding its own people hostage, turning every death into propaganda, and making sure Israel loses no matter what.
So, what is Israel supposed to do?
Let Hamas win? Let its people be slaughtered? Pull the lever and sacrifice its own children?
No nation would accept that choice.
You said that Israel can’t morally or legally escape responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza.
Well, Israel’s war in Gaza is a moral dilemma engineered by Hamas.
Imagine a trolley is speeding down a track. Five people are tied to the rails ahead. You have one chance to pull a lever that will redirect the trolley to another track, but on that track, one person is tied down.
Ethically, you face an impossible decision: do you let the trolley run over the five, or do you pull the lever and sacrifice one to save them?
Most people, after weighing the situation, would pull the lever, saving the five lives at the cost of one.
Now, let’s take it further.
What if that one person is your own child, and the five are strangers? What would you do then?
This is where Israel stands.
Hamas kidnapped Israel’s child and tied him to the tracks. Not only that, but Hamas also tied five Palestinians to the other track.
So now, what should Israel do?
Should Israel pull the lever and save the five Palestinians, sacrificing its own people?
Or should Israel save its own people and let the Palestinians die in the process?
Hamas hides behind civilians. They store weapons in hospitals, launch rockets from schools, and turn neighborhoods into human shields.
Hamas forces Israel into impossible decisions. If Israel targets Hamas, Palestinian civilians, whom Hamas intentionally puts in harm’s way, are killed.
Hamas ensures Israel gets blamed. No matter what happens, Hamas has rigged the game so that the world condemns Israel for defending itself.
Israel does not want Palestinian civilians to die. It warns them before strikes. It allows humanitarian aid. It adheres to international law far more than any other military in history.
But Hamas deliberately engineers Palestinian casualties to weaponize them against Israel.
This is not war as the world understands it. This is a terrorist organization holding its own people hostage, turning every death into propaganda, and making sure Israel loses no matter what.
So, what is Israel supposed to do?
Let Hamas win? Let its people be slaughtered? Pull the lever and sacrifice its own children?
No nation would accept that choice.
(5)
You also said: "If you take an action that you know could cause civilian deaths, then you must be intending to kill civilians."
You aren't making a legal argument. You are making an emotional accusation without understanding the ethics of warfare, the laws of armed conflict, or the actual battlefield conditions Israel faces.
Foreseeing civilian deaths in a strike against a legitimate military target, while taking steps to minimize harm, is not murder. That’s the tragic but lawful reality of war, especially in urban combat.
By your logic, every Allied bombing in WWII, every strike on Nazi weapons factories that killed German civilians, was “intentional murder.”
Hamas turns every civilian building into a military asset. They use homes as launchpads. They store rockets in schools. They hide command centers under hospitals.
This is a deliberate strategy to provoke civilian casualties and manipulate weak minds into blaming Israel for Hamas’s war crimes.
The IDF warns civilians. They call, they text, they leaflet, they “roof knock” to give civilians a chance to flee.
No other army on Earth does this.
There is no moral equivalence between targeting civilians and defending against terrorists who hide among them.
What do you propose? That Israel surrender?
That it let Hamas continue launching rockets from schools and mosques without response? That it allow tunnels to remain operational under hospitals where hostages are held? That it just… do nothing because acting means civilians might die, civilians Hamas put there?
Israel isn’t committing murder.
Israel is fighting an enemy that wants Jews dead, uses Palestinians as shields, and counts on people like Dave Smith to spread their propaganda in the name of peace.
If you can’t tell the difference between targeting civilians and targeting terrorists who hide among civilians, you shouldn't be talking about this at all.
You also said: "If you take an action that you know could cause civilian deaths, then you must be intending to kill civilians."
You aren't making a legal argument. You are making an emotional accusation without understanding the ethics of warfare, the laws of armed conflict, or the actual battlefield conditions Israel faces.
Foreseeing civilian deaths in a strike against a legitimate military target, while taking steps to minimize harm, is not murder. That’s the tragic but lawful reality of war, especially in urban combat.
By your logic, every Allied bombing in WWII, every strike on Nazi weapons factories that killed German civilians, was “intentional murder.”
Hamas turns every civilian building into a military asset. They use homes as launchpads. They store rockets in schools. They hide command centers under hospitals.
This is a deliberate strategy to provoke civilian casualties and manipulate weak minds into blaming Israel for Hamas’s war crimes.
The IDF warns civilians. They call, they text, they leaflet, they “roof knock” to give civilians a chance to flee.
No other army on Earth does this.
There is no moral equivalence between targeting civilians and defending against terrorists who hide among them.
What do you propose? That Israel surrender?
That it let Hamas continue launching rockets from schools and mosques without response? That it allow tunnels to remain operational under hospitals where hostages are held? That it just… do nothing because acting means civilians might die, civilians Hamas put there?
Israel isn’t committing murder.
Israel is fighting an enemy that wants Jews dead, uses Palestinians as shields, and counts on people like Dave Smith to spread their propaganda in the name of peace.
If you can’t tell the difference between targeting civilians and targeting terrorists who hide among civilians, you shouldn't be talking about this at all.
(6) You claimed that Israel’s actions in Gaza are equivalent to someone whose family has been murdered, then tracking down the killer, bombing the house he’s hiding in, and killing his family too.
According to you, this is “intentional murder,” and Israel should be held morally and legally accountable.
Even in your example, hunting down your family’s killer and killing him is a crime under civilian law. Vigilante justice is illegal, even when emotionally justified. So his analogy collapses immediately.
But more importantly, Israel isn’t an angry individual seeking revenge. It’s a sovereign state, acting in self-defense against a foreign terror army, Hamas, that just butchered 1,200 civilians, raped women, burned babies, and kidnapped more than 240 people, including children and the elderly.
This is not one man on the run. It’s an entire militant regime, funded by Iran, embedded within civilian areas in Gaza on purpose. And that’s not an Israeli talking point, that’s well-documented fact.
After the massacre on October 7, Hamas operatives returned to Gaza and:
Hid in homes, hospitals, schools, mosques, and UN buildings. Stored weapons in residential areas. Built command centers under hospitals. Continued launching rockets from neighborhoods. Used hostages as human shields
And the surrounding population celebrated the attacks, and filmed the kidnappings, shared the footage with pride, sheltered the terrorists willingly, actively worked to conceal hostages.
This isn’t a tragedy that “accidentally involved civilians.” This is a human shield strategy, designed to guarantee civilian deaths so Israel gets blamed.
Under international humanitarian law (the actual legal framework for war), civilians lose protected status when:
They take direct part in hostilities
They shield military operations
They refuse to evacuate after multiple warnings
Their buildings are used for military purposes
Israel, unlike any other military on Earth, takes extraordinary steps to avoid civilian harm:
Phone calls and text messages before strikes
Leaflets dropped over entire neighborhoods
"Roof-knock" warning bombs
Aborted missions when civilians are spotted
If Israel intended to kill civilians, none of that would happen.
Hamas deliberately maximizes civilian deaths, because dead Palestinians are its best propaganda tool.
By Smith’s logic, Israel should absorb massacres and kidnappings without responding, because any military action might harm civilians.
Should America have done nothing after 9/11 because al-Qaeda operated among civilians in Afghanistan?
Should NATO have halted strikes on ISIS because ISIS used human shields in Mosul?
If Israel followed your model, it would cease to exist.
According to you, this is “intentional murder,” and Israel should be held morally and legally accountable.
Even in your example, hunting down your family’s killer and killing him is a crime under civilian law. Vigilante justice is illegal, even when emotionally justified. So his analogy collapses immediately.
But more importantly, Israel isn’t an angry individual seeking revenge. It’s a sovereign state, acting in self-defense against a foreign terror army, Hamas, that just butchered 1,200 civilians, raped women, burned babies, and kidnapped more than 240 people, including children and the elderly.
This is not one man on the run. It’s an entire militant regime, funded by Iran, embedded within civilian areas in Gaza on purpose. And that’s not an Israeli talking point, that’s well-documented fact.
After the massacre on October 7, Hamas operatives returned to Gaza and:
Hid in homes, hospitals, schools, mosques, and UN buildings. Stored weapons in residential areas. Built command centers under hospitals. Continued launching rockets from neighborhoods. Used hostages as human shields
And the surrounding population celebrated the attacks, and filmed the kidnappings, shared the footage with pride, sheltered the terrorists willingly, actively worked to conceal hostages.
This isn’t a tragedy that “accidentally involved civilians.” This is a human shield strategy, designed to guarantee civilian deaths so Israel gets blamed.
Under international humanitarian law (the actual legal framework for war), civilians lose protected status when:
They take direct part in hostilities
They shield military operations
They refuse to evacuate after multiple warnings
Their buildings are used for military purposes
Israel, unlike any other military on Earth, takes extraordinary steps to avoid civilian harm:
Phone calls and text messages before strikes
Leaflets dropped over entire neighborhoods
"Roof-knock" warning bombs
Aborted missions when civilians are spotted
If Israel intended to kill civilians, none of that would happen.
Hamas deliberately maximizes civilian deaths, because dead Palestinians are its best propaganda tool.
By Smith’s logic, Israel should absorb massacres and kidnappings without responding, because any military action might harm civilians.
Should America have done nothing after 9/11 because al-Qaeda operated among civilians in Afghanistan?
Should NATO have halted strikes on ISIS because ISIS used human shields in Mosul?
If Israel followed your model, it would cease to exist.
(7) The West Bank as an evidence.
From 2005 to 2023, more Israelis were murdered by terrorists from the West Bank than from Gaza.
The West Bank produced a deadlier toll through shootings, stabbings, car rammings, and coordinated terror attacks.
Yet in nearly two decades of bloodshed, Israel has never responded to the West Bank with airstrikes.
Why?
Because there were no missiles. No barrages of rockets targeting Israeli cities. No sirens sending children to bomb shelters in Tel Aviv or Ashkelon.
Now contrast that with Gaza, a strip ruled by a death cult, firing rockets from hospitals, mosques, and residential buildings. Since 2005, tens of thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israeli towns.
If Israel were truly the aggressor, it would have carpet-bombed Jenin and Nablus years ago. Instead, it sends ground forces, door-to-door, risking the lives of its soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.
No rockets from the West Bank meant no airstrikes. Simple.
But when Gaza launches missiles, Israel strikes launchers. When Gaza builds terror tunnels, Israel targets the engineering teams. When Hamas uses apartment buildings as rocket depots, Israel surgically neutralizes them, after warnings.
Here’s the raw truth: Israel doesn’t strike first, it strikes back, and only when forced to.
From 2005 to 2023, more Israelis were murdered by terrorists from the West Bank than from Gaza.
The West Bank produced a deadlier toll through shootings, stabbings, car rammings, and coordinated terror attacks.
Yet in nearly two decades of bloodshed, Israel has never responded to the West Bank with airstrikes.
Why?
Because there were no missiles. No barrages of rockets targeting Israeli cities. No sirens sending children to bomb shelters in Tel Aviv or Ashkelon.
Now contrast that with Gaza, a strip ruled by a death cult, firing rockets from hospitals, mosques, and residential buildings. Since 2005, tens of thousands of rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israeli towns.
If Israel were truly the aggressor, it would have carpet-bombed Jenin and Nablus years ago. Instead, it sends ground forces, door-to-door, risking the lives of its soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.
No rockets from the West Bank meant no airstrikes. Simple.
But when Gaza launches missiles, Israel strikes launchers. When Gaza builds terror tunnels, Israel targets the engineering teams. When Hamas uses apartment buildings as rocket depots, Israel surgically neutralizes them, after warnings.
Here’s the raw truth: Israel doesn’t strike first, it strikes back, and only when forced to.
(3)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
