Not saying this isn’t important, but like literally every time hamas decides to do something this comes up.
If you consider how and why hamas was created, then no they aren’t really the first strike. That would have been Israel back in 1949.
Not that it would have changed much in terms of USA support had it been the other way around, but first strike really needs to be not taken as some auto indicator of who is wrong, especially now that countries have figured out how easy it is to run false flags for publicity.
tbf though, I think this is the first time hamas ever launched a surprise attack that wasn’t a direct response for a recent event.
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties I agree with you that the first strike counts, but according to this source the first strike belongs to Israel. 165K Palestinians injured from 2008 till 7.10.23. don’t know for you, but for me this is a staggering high number, vs. … 6K
First strike does matter, though.
It can’t be the only thing that matters, but in both, our initial support went to the one attacked*.
Not saying this isn’t important, but like literally every time hamas decides to do something this comes up.
If you consider how and why hamas was created, then no they aren’t really the first strike. That would have been Israel back in 1949.
Not that it would have changed much in terms of USA support had it been the other way around, but first strike really needs to be not taken as some auto indicator of who is wrong, especially now that countries have figured out how easy it is to run false flags for publicity.
tbf though, I think this is the first time hamas ever launched a surprise attack that wasn’t a direct response for a recent event.
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties I agree with you that the first strike counts, but according to this source the first strike belongs to Israel. 165K Palestinians injured from 2008 till 7.10.23. don’t know for you, but for me this is a staggering high number, vs. … 6K