Biden admin justifies Israel’s assault on Gaza hospitals with Israeli ‘intelligence’

[Scott]

...there is no solid evidence that there's one below the Al-Shifa hospital, and plenty of evidence that there isn't, as well as evidence that Israel's military is actively trying to deceive people into believing that one exists there.

Why?

Again, I don't know, though I see that IBD has engaged on some speculation in regards to your query in post #25 if you're interested. Now here's a question for you. Why do you believe that Israel's military is fabricating evidence to make it -appear- as if Hamas was doing things underneath the Al-Shifa hospital?

If there is no Hamas complex beneath the Al Shifa hospital, why is the IDF wasting their time on it?

Your question reveals your assumption that the reason that the Al Shifa hospital was attacked by the IDF was because there is actually a Hamas complex beneath it. The tell is your last bit, "why is the IDF wasting their time on it?". Your assumption being that if there is no Hamas complex beneath the hospital, it would be a waste of time to attack it. You apparently haven't thought of any alternatives. As mentioned previously, IBD has come up with some alternative possibilities in post 25 if you're interested. I myself don't claim to know why they attacked it, I've just pointed out the evidence that it's not because there is any Hamas complex underneath the hospital.

 

[Scott]

First, a trivial preposition comment. Gaza is a geographic region, not a person or people. Journalists can embed in a region and/or with people, but not with a region.

Second, journalists are similar to investors in that they voluntarily accept risks to get stories that give them a higher "competitive edge" ROI. Many journalists embed with people who are targets, or embed in areas/regions that are hostile. It's the manifestation of their competition.

stfu, you niggling jackoffheimer.

He made good points in a respectful manner. I don't see how insulting him for it helps the discussion progress.

the real point is that journalists embedded with terrorist attacks are also terrorists.

Making a similar point to IBD, you can't embed journalists with "terrorist attacks". You could certainly embed journalists with terrorist units, which is arguably what Israel has allowed with journalists embedded with the IDF.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

He made good points in a respectful manner. I don't see how insulting him for it helps the discussion progress.



Making a similar point to IBD, you can't embed journalists with "terrorist attacks". You could certainly embed journalists with terrorist units, which is arguably what Israel has allowed with journalists embedded with the IDF.

Well i see.

you don't have to see.

Im the one who has to see it because im saying it and I saw it.

Mind your own dildo collection.

 

[Scott]

Hamas is giving Israel impossible choices, by using civilians as human shields while killing other civilians.

Absurd. Team Israel keeps chanting this, i.e. "Hamas uses human shields, Hamas uses human shields, ... " ... but they don't, because they can't. The IDF already blasts the fuck out of everybody with air strikes. Hamas can't hide behind human shields if the humans don't serve as shields. Humans should serve effectively as shields, and would, if Israel were waging war legally instead of waging genocide.

The IDF has negated all of Team Israel's claims that Hamas hides behind human shields. Walt, your claim is false. Try again.

Agreed.

If Israel does nothing, Hamas kills civilians.

If Israel were to attack Iran, the attacks on Israel could be halted.

Or they could increase. I think it'd be akin to playing with fire. I'm happy to see that the Biden Admin and Israel have at least both refrained from doing that so far.

If Israel does not attack Iran, Iran continues to attack Israel and Israeli civilians die.

I think you're distorting the truth here. Something has to be said here on direct vs. indirect military involvement. It's the difference between the U.S., which supplies Israel with weapons, and the Israeli military, which is directly responsible for killing Palestinians in Gaza.

If Israel does not attack Iran and instead decides to perpetrate genocide on civilian Arab Semite noncombatants in Gaza, then Israeli civilians die plus Palestinian civilians die by the thousands ... and Iran continues to attack Israel and even more Israeli civilians die. Guess which option Israel chose?

I think Israel's government chose the option they thought to be best. Ofcourse, we need to consider that this is a government that has long wanted a "Greater Israel" and to remove the option of the Gazan palestinians from having much say in who governs them. I think we can both agree that the choice it's made is a bad one.

The best solution is to do the best to minimize civilian deaths,

That means only one thing: attack the source of the attacks and stop the attacks, i.e. attack Iran.

Again, I strongly disagree with this statement. I think that the cause of these attacks is not Iran, but rather Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, the path to minimizing civilian deaths is to treat these Palestinians in a more humane way.

All that Israel will accomplish by perpetrating genocide on the civilian Arab Semite civilians in Gaza is to exterminate Palestinians who never attacked Israel so that Israelis can feel better by quenching their racist thirst.

I definitely worry that Israel may indeed exterminate or at least greatly reduce the Gazan population. It may well be that most die not from bombs but from what is arguably worse, malnutrition, exposure to the elements, and poisons in their drinking water. Regardless, I think Israel's setting the tone for more animosity towards it from its neighbours, which I think we can agree should be something that any intelligent government should try to avoid.

 

[IBDaMann]

Or they could increase...

... before stopping. Iran is responsible for all the attacks on Israel. By not attacking Iran, Israel guarantees attacks in perpetuity. If Israel wants the attacks to stop, Israel needs to attack Iran.

Now, here's some Logic 101 for you: Israel doesn't want the attacks to stop, therefore they don't invade Iran. What Israel wants is a plausible pretense for storming Gaza and slaughtering the Arabs that they HATE. Even a completely lame pretense is "plausible" for Team Israel who don't want the genocide to end now that they have their popcorn, soda and front row seats. Kill 'em all! You have to know when to put a rabid dog down! Israel has a right to defend itself, which means that Israel has a right to violate the Geneva Conventions that apparently nobody on Team Israel understands.

I think it'd be akin to playing with fire.

So you think Israel should allow the attacks to go on forever?

I'm happy to see that the Biden Admin and Israel have at least both refrained from doing that so far.

Why? The reason Israel refrains is because they just want to eradicate the civilian Arab Semite noncombatants. Why would Israel want to attack Iran, who provides the justification for Israel bringing on the 2nd Nakba?

I think you're distorting the truth here. Something has to be said here on direct vs. indirect military involvement.

So what needs to be said? What is "indirect" military involvement anyway?

It's the difference between the U.S., which supplies Israel with weapons, and the Israeli military, which is directly responsible for killing Palestinians in Gaza.

Bad analogy. It's more like when you want to put put in a deck in your back yard. You could certainly do it yourself, but most people hire an organization that specializes in that sort of thing. You would still dictate what it is you want (and what you don't want) from your living room, and you would coordinate and authorize all the details ... from your living room, and of course, you would fund it, but the organization would do all the work in carrying out your instructions.

Once the deed is done, you wouldn't say "an organization installed a deck in my back yard." You would say "I installed a deck in my back yard."

I think Israel's government chose the option they thought to be best.

... and immediately launched air strikes against civilian noncombatants that never attacked Israel, against noncombatants who Israel had an obligation to protect the moment they invaded Gaza. I don't see how you think that was somehow the right response and attacking Iran was somehow not.

Ofcourse, we need to consider that this is a government that has long wanted a "Greater Israel"

In much the same way Hitler wanted to restore the magnificence of the Reich ...

... and to remove the option of the Gazan palestinians from having much say in who governs them.

In much the same way Hitler eliminated the civil rights of the Jews.

Again, I strongly disagree with this statement. I think that the cause of these attacks is not Iran, ...

Iran is responsible for all the attacks on Israel. All of them.

... but rather Israel's treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Nope. All the attacks are committed by Hamas and Hezbollah, who are hired and directed by the Ayatollah.

Therefore, the path to minimizing civilian deaths is to treat these Palestinians in a more humane way.

Check your timelines. You'll notice that the Ayatollah sends Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel even when Israel treats the Palestinians very, very well ... because the two are independent. Iran will never stop attacking Israel unless somebody makes them stop.

I definitely worry that Israel may indeed exterminate or at least greatly reduce the Gazan population.

... at a rate of roughly 300/day.

It may well be that most die not from bombs but from what is arguably worse, malnutrition, exposure to the elements, and poisons in their drinking water.

At the moment, Israeli air strikes are preventing those other possibilities.

Regardless, I think Israel's setting the tone for more animosity towards it from its neighbours, which I think we can agree should be something that any intelligent government should try to avoid.

Israel wants the additional animosity. Israel wants other Arab countries to enter the fray so that Israel can "cry for help" and then laugh when other countries begin annihilating Arabs at a much greater rate. It will be the Israeli dream.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

I see that IBD has engaged on some speculation in regards to your query in post #25.

IBD is convinced that "antisemitic" means "against Semites", including Arabs - although, as I pointed out, NO dictionary even mentions this. I am unable to take the speculations of such a person seriously.

Your question reveals your assumption that the reason that the Al Shifa hospital was attacked by the IDF was because there is actually a Hamas complex beneath it.

The Hamas control centers must be somewhere, and presumably the IDF wants to take them out. Where do you think they are? Do you have no suggestions whatever?

 

[IBDaMann]

IBD is convinced that "antisemitic" means "against Semites",

That is correct. The set of Semites = Arab Semites + Jewish Semites

including Arabs - although, as I pointed out, NO dictionary even mentions this.

Here you go: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ARABS

Arab [ ar-uhb ] noun
a member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia and other countries of the Middle East.

I am unable to take the speculations of such a person seriously.

Someday, when you are no longer a completely uneducated moron, you might have better judgement.

The Hamas control centers must be somewhere,

That's brilliant rationale for bombing a hospital. Absolutely brilliant!

 

[IBDaMann]

The difference between you and me is I have no problem with Israel reducing Gaza to a pile of rubble.

... because you know that Iran is responsible for the attack on Israel, but it's Arabs that you HATE and want to see exterminated. Say it with me: "Bring on the 2nd Nakba! Bring on the 2nd Nakba!"

Here is why. The rabid dogs of Hamas have had control of Gaza for 18 fucking years.

... and you equate all of Hamas with the Al Qassam soldiers. Brilliant! You then equate all civilian Arab Semite noncombatants with Al Qassam soldiers. Brilliant! You consider all Arabs to be subhuman, i.e. rabid dogs who need to be put down. Brilliant!

There is no moral equivalency between you and a decent human being.

In 18 years what have they done to make a better life for Palestinians?

The same is true for Democrats, but that doesn't give the IDF license to invade Detroit and recklessly kill the inhabitants. Your whiny excuses are lame.

Has Hamas bombed Israel form Gaza?

Has Iran had Israel bombed from Gaza?

If Hamas hadnt bombed Israel from Gaza over the last 18 years, is it your claim that Israel would have bombed Hamas?

If Iran hadn't had Israel bombed from Gaza over the last 18 years, is it your claim that the Palestinian Arab Semite civilians would no longer be subhuman?

I get tired of people trying to make a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas.

Correct. A much better moral equivalence exists between genocidal Israel and genocidal Nazi Germany. The common themes are the overtly racist vitriol fomenting HATRED, the rampant atrocities in the attempt to exterminate the HATED race, the perpetration of genocide on those who never attacked, etc.

All Hamas does is commit heinous one-time crimes, i.e. one-and-done. Israel perpetrates the persistent genocide effort, day after day after day ....

One of the goals of Hamas is the eradication of Jews from the face of the earth.

One of the successes of Israel is the eradication of Arabs from Gaza and the bringing on of the 2nd Nakba. Israelis don't merely talk about genocide, they effect it.

If that's true, which it is, then Israel has a moral directive to defend themselves.

... but they don't. They never attack Iran. They instead perpetrate genocide on the Arab Semite noncombatants they truly HATE.

 

[Scott]

The difference between you and me is I have no problem with Israel reducing Gaza to a pile of rubble.

2.4 million people living in rubble is a very bad thing.

Glad we agree on that.

There might be no better alternative, but any sane person has a problem with it.

I certainly agree that anyone seeing the situation rationally would have a problem with it. I'd also like to point out that I think the evidence is quite compelling that there is a better alternative, that being negotiations, which is finally what's happening now.

 

[Scott]

My interest is not what Biden parrots but what the Team Israel thought collective is parroting at any given moment. I laughed at the propaganda staple, i.e. "Hamas hides behind human shields!" that is used to fill in any gaps that arise in a discussion. It's an absurd remark. The IDF kills all human shields and all civilian noncombatants alike, therefore there is no such thing as a "human shield" where Israel is concerned. Lately I found myself chuckling at the insistence that Hamas was using both the Al-Shifa hospital and an IDF-destroyed apartment building "to store supplies." I realized that the IDF now had license to kill hundreds of civilian Arab Semite noncombatants at a time by destroying large residential structures when they were full of people, by noting that there were things amongst the rubble, and declaring that "Hamas was using the structure to store supplies." Upon uttering such an absurd assertion, someone else can immediately follow up with "Hamas is known for hiding behind human shields" and yet a third can shout indignantly "Israel has a right to defend itself!" ... and the show's o-vah! Move along, move along, there's nothing to see here.

Agreed. It all seems like blatant propaganda to me. I'm glad that Netanyahu has finally come to his senses if only temporarily with this general ceasefire.

 

[Scott]

He made good points in a respectful manner. I don't see how insulting him for it helps the discussion progress.

Making a similar point to IBD, you can't embed journalists with "terrorist attacks". You could certainly embed journalists with terrorist units, which is arguably what Israel has allowed with journalists embedded with the IDF.

Well i see.

you don't have to see.

Im the one who has to see it because im saying it and I saw it.

I certainly agree that I don't have to see anything you believe you are seeing. I do hope that you take into consideration the possibility that I'm right though.

Mind your own dildo collection.

-.-

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I certainly agree that I don't have to see anything you believe you are seeing. I do hope that you take into consideration the possibility that I'm right though.



-.-

Im sorry, but it's impossible.

 

[Scott]

Or they could increase...

... before stopping.

Even if attacks by Hamas were to stop, I think we can agree that attacks from Iran would start, and Iran has a lot more power to wage war than Hamas. Not only that, but attacking Iran might well get other Arab countries into the frey. I think a good phrase here could well be "out of the frying pan, into the fire".

Iran is responsible for all the attacks on Israel.

That's a pretty bold statement. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any? For my part, I certainly think th at Iran's support of Hamas has -aided- Hamas' attacks, just as U.S. military aid has aided Israel's attacks on Palestinians but that's a far cry from Iran being responsible for all of them. For my part, I have yet to see any evidence that Iran's government made the decision for any Hamas attack on Israelies.

By not attacking Iran, Israel guarantees attacks in perpetuity.

Again, you're making an unsubstantiated assertion. From what I've read, I believe the strongest cause of all Palestinian attacks on Israelis is the way Israelis have treated Palestinians.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

A much better moral equivalence exists between genocidal Israel and genocidal Nazi Germany.

Did Nazi Germany have a Jew as a supreme court justice?

Khaled Kabub, an Arab Israeli, is a permanent member of the supreme court of Israel.

 

[Scott]

If Israel does not attack Iran, Iran continues to attack Israel and Israeli civilians die.

I think you're distorting the truth here. Something has to be said here on direct vs. indirect military involvement.

So what needs to be said? What is "indirect" military involvement anyway?

A good question. I haven't been able to find an article that gets into the definition of indirect military involvement, so perhaps it would be better to frame it as proxy vs. direct wars, as Wikipedia does have an article on Proxy wars. From their article:

**
A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.[1] In order for a conflict to be considered a proxy war, there must be a direct, long-term relationship between external actors and the belligerents involved.[2] The aforementioned relationship usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort.[2]
**

I think that most if not all here would agree that the U.S. is engaged in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Due to Iran's support of Hamas and the U.S.'s support of Israel, I think that we could also agree that Iran is involved in a Proxy war with the U.S. in Gaza. However, I also strongly suspect that the U.S. is spending an awful lot more to support Israel than Iran is to support Hamas.

 

[Yakuda]

... because you know that Iran is responsible for the attack on Israel, but it's Arabs that you HATE and want to see exterminated. Say it with me: "Bring on the 2nd Nakba! Bring on the 2nd Nakba!"


... and you equate all of Hamas with the Al Qassam soldiers. Brilliant! You then equate all civilian Arab Semite noncombatants with Al Qassam soldiers. Brilliant! You consider all Arabs to be subhuman, i.e. rabid dogs who need to be put down. Brilliant!

There is no moral equivalency between you and a decent human being.


The same is true for Democrats, but that doesn't give the IDF license to invade Detroit and recklessly kill the inhabitants. Your whiny excuses are lame.


Has Iran had Israel bombed from Gaza?


If Iran hadn't had Israel bombed from Gaza over the last 18 years, is it your claim that the Palestinian Arab Semite civilians would no longer be subhuman?


Correct. A much better moral equivalence exists between genocidal Israel and genocidal Nazi Germany. The common themes are the overtly racist vitriol fomenting HATRED, the rampant atrocities in the attempt to exterminate the HATED race, the perpetration of genocide on those who never attacked, etc.

All Hamas does is commit heinous one-time crimes, i.e. one-and-done. Israel perpetrates the persistent genocide effort, day after day after day ....


One of the successes of Israel is the eradication of Arabs from Gaza and the bringing on of the 2nd Nakba. Israelis don't merely talk about genocide, they effect it.


... but they don't. They never attack Iran. They instead perpetrate genocide on the Arab Semite noncombatants they truly HATE.

Hamas has had 18 years of control of Gaza and they havent done anything to make life better for Palestinians. Stop playing pretend would you?

 

[Scott]

It's the difference between the U.S., which supplies Israel with weapons, and the Israeli military, which is directly responsible for killing Palestinians in Gaza.

Bad analogy.

I'm not sure why you think that. I've read what you wrote afterwards, perhaps responding to that will help clarify things.

It's more like when you want to put put in a deck in your back yard. You could certainly do it yourself, but most people hire an organization that specializes in that sort of thing. You would still dictate what it is you want (and what you don't want) from your living room, and you would coordinate and authorize all the details ... from your living room, and of course, you would fund it, but the organization would do all the work in carrying out your instructions.

Do you have any evidence that Iran is doing the equivalent of this with Hamas? I did some digging just now to try to find Iran's precise role in the October 7th attacks. I finallly found an article from The National, a news site with connections to the United Arab Emirates, one of only 3 Arab countries to make a peace deal with Israel after the Arab israeli war in 1948:

Israel and UAE strike historic deal to normalise relations | BBC

Here's the article if you're interested:

Iran 'complicit' but not directly involved in Hamas attacks, White House says | The National

A quote from the article:
**
But Israel's Foreign Ministry accused Iran of spreading “bloodshed” and directly arming Hamas.

"Hamas would not have been able to carry this murderous attack without the financing, logistical support and weapons it received from Iran,” the Israeli statement said.
**

The same could be said for for the U.S.'s role in Israel's retaliation on the Gazan population after October 7th. Which brings me back to questioning why you didn't like my analogy of the U.S. doing for Israel what Iran has done for Hamas. What's more, Iran's funding isn't even the lion's share of Hamas' money. I just found this out after reading part of an article from Aki Peritz, writing for the The New Republic. Quoting from it:

**
Hamas’s Main Source of Funding Might Surprise You

Israel can’t crush the terror group without destroying its finances—and that will be much harder than the military battles being waged right now.

[snip]

One of this conflict’s greatest ironies is that Hamas has Netanyahu to thank in part for its strength. For years, he has propped up Hamas in Gaza in order to weaken the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, or P.A., in the West Bank, thereby dashing hopes for a two-state solution. He reportedly admitted as much in 2019, in defending his decision to allow Qatari funds to flow into Gaza.

Another irony is that while Hamas fully controls the institutions of governance in Gaza, the P.A. is paying the lion’s share of the international aid flowing into the area. For example, in 2021 alone, the P.A. transferred $1.7 billion to Gaza, theoretically to pay the salaries and pensions of tens of thousands of civil servants idled by Hamas’s brutal takeover of Gaza in 2007. A similar phenomenon occurred in Iraq when Baghdad for years effectively subsidized tens of thousands of workers operating in Islamic State–controlled areas.

The P.A.—which Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said should take over Gaza once the war is over—reportedly transfers up to 30 percent of its annual budget to the Gaza Strip. The authority also controversially pays a stipend to Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere who are imprisoned in Israeli jails, or to the families of Palestinians who were killed while carrying out an attack. But here’s a further conundrum: Israel collects the P.A.’s taxes and customs duties—which make up 65 percent of the Palestinian budget—because the P.A. does not have official statehood status. This means Israel can freeze or deduct this money whenever it likes, which it did earlier this month.

Additional aid to Gaza comes from oil-rich Qatar (where many senior Hamas leaders live and work in luxurious surroundings), which in 2021 provided $360 million for Hamas government salaries and cash handouts to families—with Israel’s knowledge and approval. The United Nations funds and runs schools and hospitals in Gaza and employs many workers, teachers, and medical personnel, spending $600 million in 2020. These are, of course, avenues for Hamas to extract money through taxes, extortion, and black marketeering, despite the efforts of international overseers, including Israel itself.

All this is to say that every dollar—or shekel, as the P.A. and Hamas largely pay their employees in Israeli currency—that Hamas does not have to spend on Gaza schools, hospitals, government salaries, and governance, the group can instead spend on terrorist purposes. Hamas imposes taxes and fees on the local population; that money is then spent on Hamas’s end goals. It is unclear how much of the P.A. money is skimmed by Hamas, but if the Islamic State’s financial management structure in Mosul can serve as a rough guide, it could be up to 50 percent.

This is in addition to what other donors provide. Anonymous Western officials speaking to The Wall Street Journal estimated that Iran provides Hamas $100 million annually for military activities, while the terrorist group generates $12 million to $15 million a month on smuggled Egyptian goods, according to Gaza-based economist Mohammed Abu Jayab. A recent analysis from Die Welt suggests Hamas sits upon a financial empire worth $700 million.
**

Full article:
Hamas’s Main Source of Funding Might Surprise You | The New Republic

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm glad that Netanyahu has finally come to his senses if only temporarily with this general ceasefire.

Any pause in a genocide is great news! I think of the children who will get to live to see another day.

 

[IBDaMann]

Even if attacks by Hamas were to stop, I think we can agree that attacks from Iran would start, and Iran has a lot more power to wage war than Hamas.

You have this entirely backwards. You think that Hamas and Hezbollah somehow fund themselves. Both are mere terrorism contractors who have the Ayatollah of Iran as a client.

Not only that, but attacking Iran might well get other Arab countries into the frey.

Attacking Iran might very well draw in others. The question that must be asked is "Does Israel want attacks to stop, or does Israel need Iran's attacks in order to maintain their victim status? What would happen to Israel's presumption of victimhood if nobody were attacking them? How would Israel ever justify perpetrating a heinous genocide on Arab Semites and justify bringing on the 2nd Nakba if the world couldn't effectively conflate Palestinian civilians living in Gaza with militant Al Qassam terrorists? We can glean precious clues to Israel's thinking by noting who they do, and do not, attack.

That's a pretty bold statement. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

That's like telling me that claiming Iran is situated between Iraq and Afghanistan is a bold statement that needs extraordinary support, and then asking me if I have any evidence. Have you done any research into the matter? Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad Movement represent three of Iran's distinct partnerships: 1) Hamas is the prime contractor on Iran's partnership with Qatar, 2) Hezbollah is the prime contractor in Iran's partnership with Syria and 3) the Islamic Jihad Movement is the prime contractor in Iran's partnership with Gaza. Iran, a heavily Shia Muslim country, wants to eradicate all Jews off the face of the earth, but is singularly obsessed with destroying Israel, and requires its contractors to have the same end goal if they want Iran's business. Iran, however, is not an Arab country and thus prefers to work within the context of a partnership with other Arab countries. Hamas and Hezbollah typically launch rockets while Islamic Jihad typically infiltrates Israel with suicide bombers and performs other small attacks with firearms and other small weapons.

When you decide to look into the matter, you will find that funding comes mostly from Iran plus additional contributions from the partner who also provides language and cultural assistance in the overarching coordination. You will find that each contractor, i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, all give the same official response as to their funding, i.e. "We have a global portfolio and we draw from that" but the real source is Iran + partner. In fact, when you read the words "global portfolio", substitute Iran + partner. This "global portfolio" is Iran's creation to enable funding of contractors because western countries are on the lookout for questionable/terrorist financial transactions.

FinCEN alert on Iran
Treasury alert on Hizballah
FinCEN alert on Hamas
FinCEN alert on Islamic Jihad
New York suit against Hizballah

For my part, I certainly think that Iran's support of Hamas has -aided- Hamas' attacks,

Nope. Iran calls the shots. Iran will certainly listen to their partner on any given "project" but Iran always has the final say.

that's a far cry from Iran being responsible for all of them.

Iran is responsible for all of them ... except for Saddam Hussein's SCUD missile attacks which were intended to galvanize the Muslim world against the Great Satan's and the Little Satan's efforts against Iraq.

For my part, I have yet to see any evidence that Iran's government made the decision for any Hamas attack on Israelies.

You'll find all the evidence you want when you start to follow the money. Hamas cannot fund itself. Nor can Hezbollah, nor can Islamic Jihad.

Again, you're making an unsubstantiated assertion.

Again, you haven't performed any actual research into the matter.

From what I've read, I believe the strongest cause of all Palestinian attacks on Israelis is the way Israelis have treated Palestinians.

Mistreatment of Palestinians does not generate anywhere near the kind of money needed to launch attacks against Israel. Also, as you can see from the rest of the world, nobody cares about the Palestinians. Nobody will come rushing to their aid. Mistreatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis is only sufficient to generate some lip service.

You'll find all of your answers when you follow the money.

 

[IBDaMann]

Did Nazi Germany have a Jew as a supreme court justice?

Did Netanyahu allow an Arab doctor tend to his mother?