Thank you, Mr.
Let’s unpack your assertions:
Thank you, Mr. Price, for taking the time to read Atrocities Inflicted by Hamas: Documentation and Analysis. Your reply is nothing if not forceful, and I appreciate that you engaged with the piece rather than ignoring it. That said, intensity is no substitute for accuracy, and rhetorical flair cannot replace evidence.
Let’s unpack your assertions:
• You claim there’s a “complete lack of evidence,” despite Israel’s “fetishistic obsession with surveillance.”
• You dismiss the October 7th attacks as “tired regurgitation,” suggesting they’re irrelevant or overstated.
• You reduce the entire analysis to Zionist propaganda—“Hasbara”—and insist the world now sees only “starvation and genocide.”
On Evidence and Surveillance
The irony here is striking. You invoke Israel’s surveillance infrastructure as proof that no atrocities occurred—yet that very infrastructure has helped document the events in question. Eyewitness accounts, video footage, forensic investigations, and independent reports are not figments of imagination. If your standard of proof requires omniscience, then no atrocity anywhere in history would qualify. The piece presents sourced, corroborated data. If you believe specific claims are unsubstantiated, name them. Vague dismissal is not critique—it’s evasion.
On October 7th and Historical Context
Calling October 7th “tired regurgitation” is not just historically negligent—it’s morally corrosive. The scale and brutality of those attacks demand scrutiny, not selective amnesia. Acknowledging Israeli misconduct does not absolve Hamas of its own. This is not a zero-sum ledger of suffering. If your position is that one side’s crimes cancel out the other’s, then you’re not arguing for justice—you’re arguing for tribalism.
On Accusations of Hasbara
Labeling the article “Hasbara” is a rhetorical shortcut designed to discredit without engaging. It’s the intellectual equivalent of waving away a peer-reviewed study by calling it “corporate shill work.” If you believe the analysis is biased, then demonstrate how—point to the framing, the sourcing, the omissions. Otherwise, you’re not critiquing the argument; you’re attacking its existence.
