FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > IDF ordered to kill innocent people
IDF ordered to kill innocent people
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
" At a rough estimate, they appear to be shooting around 30 people a day (possibly more and possibly less). " Whose estimate is this? | |||
| |||
" At a rough estimate, they appear to be shooting around 30 people a day (possibly more and possibly less). Whose estimate is this?" It is my estimate - I could check what has actually been reported but didn't expect to have been called up on the actual numbers. Perhaps you disagree (I did say that it could be more or it could be less) or perhaps you do not like that I have put numbers down at all. Perhaps you would like to correct my rough estimate or perhaps you deny that there have been any killing! This is your opportunity to do so - please enlighten me rather than question my rough estimate | |||
| |||
" At a rough estimate, they appear to be shooting around 30 people a day (possibly more and possibly less). Whose estimate is this? It is my estimate - I could check what has actually been reported but didn't expect to have been called up on the actual numbers. Perhaps you disagree (I did say that it could be more or it could be less) or perhaps you do not like that I have put numbers down at all. Perhaps you would like to correct my rough estimate or perhaps you deny that there have been any killing! This is your opportunity to do so - please enlighten me rather than question my rough estimate " The exposé was reported in Ha'aretz. The allegations was that soldiers were ordered to "shoot at" crowds of people, add a form of crowd control. It did not say that they were told to kill anyone. Of course, this very likely did kill people, which could well be a war crime and gives IDF command some tough questions to answer. However, there have been conflicting reports of the originators of the violence causing deaths at and around queues for food. Accusations have been levelled at the IDF, private contractors affiliated with GHF, local militias and Hamas itself. Some of these accusations seem to have been validated/evidenced. The best source for real information on this specific topic (interviews of IDF soldiers) is Ha'aretz itself (a very much not pro-Israeli government publication), which is the source of the exposé. Other secondary news sites will reframe and omit according to their political leanings. The numbers you estimated, as well as the title of this thread, do not reflect the information in the primary source, which is how stories grow legs. Those who order and commit crimes need to be held accountable, but inaccuracies will muddy the water and ultimately undermine the veracity of these reports. | |||
| |||
" At a rough estimate, they appear to be shooting around 30 people a day (possibly more and possibly less). Whose estimate is this? It is my estimate - I could check what has actually been reported but didn't expect to have been called up on the actual numbers. Perhaps you disagree (I did say that it could be more or it could be less) or perhaps you do not like that I have put numbers down at all. Perhaps you would like to correct my rough estimate or perhaps you deny that there have been any killing! This is your opportunity to do so - please enlighten me rather than question my rough estimate The exposé was reported in Ha'aretz. The allegations was that soldiers were ordered to "shoot at" crowds of people, add a form of crowd control. It did not say that they were told to kill anyone. Of course, this very likely did kill people, which could well be a war crime and gives IDF command some tough questions to answer. However, there have been conflicting reports of the originators of the violence causing deaths at and around queues for food. Accusations have been levelled at the IDF, private contractors affiliated with GHF, local militias and Hamas itself. Some of these accusations seem to have been validated/evidenced. The best source for real information on this specific topic (interviews of IDF soldiers) is Ha'aretz itself (a very much not pro-Israeli government publication), which is the source of the exposé. Other secondary news sites will reframe and omit according to their political leanings. The numbers you estimated, as well as the title of this thread, do not reflect the information in the primary source, which is how stories grow legs. Those who order and commit crimes need to be held accountable, but inaccuracies will muddy the water and ultimately undermine the veracity of these reports." I checked the source where I had read this and you are correct in that it is Haaretz. According to them there have been 549 Palestinians now killed in the last 30 days. Itself shocking. But, EVERY SINGLE ONE WAS KILLED AT A FOOD AID STATION. A unique war crime. Firing squads using aid as bait. Palestinians in Gaza face two choices: starve to death, or risk death to get food. (The above has been taken from their article and a previous poster listed the numbers killed and wounded each day). The same source also reports the testimony of one Israeli soldier: “It's a killing field. Live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. "I'm not aware of a single instance of return fire. There's no enemy, no weapons." I am sure they you have read the full article. Okay, it may be an anti-Israeli publication but we have come to realise they Israel denies any killings yet on further investigation we find out that they took place (take the killing of the medics in their van which was then buried to hide the event as just one example). I have also seen video footage of people being fired on at reputedly an aid distribution centre and bodies being carried off in hand carts. Possibly all fabricated or possibly all these people were heavily armed and the IDF were simply defending themselves but I seriously doubt it. So, to sum up, and I apologise for getting sidetracked regarding numbers reportedly killed, if these soldiers are being told to shoot innocent people whilst they scramble for aid at venues promoted by the Israeli forces, are they committing war crimes? Or, does following orders, mean that they are perfectly within their rights to do so - as per those in the concentration camps during WW2? | |||
" ...if these soldiers are being told to shoot innocent people whilst they scramble for aid at venues promoted by the Israeli forces, are they committing war crimes?" As mentioned above, it is very probable. These brave soldiers need to be applauded for speaking up in line with their conscience. It is vanishingly rare, especially in the Middle East, to see this kind of humanity. The IDF prosecution needs to be supported in their investigation and prosecution of potential war crimes, even if the politicians would like to bury it. " Or, does following orders, mean that they are perfectly within their rights to do so - as per those in the concentration camps during WW2?" That depends on circumstances. If they're given an imperative command, with an understanding that known terrorists are definitely approaching, it would probably not stand. If they're told "shoot any of the miserable bastards you like who approach, they're filth", then probably yes, it's almost certainly a war crime. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So 416 people killed trying to get basic food supplies from GHF in June. The population of Gaza is about 1/35th of the UK, so to get an idea of what this would be like if this was going on in the UK - it would be like 14,500 Brits being killed going to food banks in June." Deaths per km2, the IDF have killed 56,000 in 365km2 Gaza territory over 18 months, compare that to Russian forces killing 25,000 civilians in Ukraine with a land mass of 603,628km2 over 40 months of war in Ukraine . It is no coincidence that civilians are being targeted | |||
| |||
"If it is corrorobated then it is a war crime But the soldiers say they felt in fear of their life So difficult to prove. Especially as the Israelis have no way of knowing if those in the crowd are also Armed" Unless they were presenting a risk, such as displaying arms, it's not acceptable to kill people who have been directed to a place, as their only way to get essential aid. Israel has orchestrated things, such that a tiny proportion of the essential aid supplies needed are allowed to be provided at inconvenient distribution points. Their distributors aren't independent, nor free from IDF attacks and murder. This is getting less than 1% of the UK media coverage, than 4 or 5 words spoken by some artist. Shame on those who are complicit in this repugnant state of affairs! | |||
"It has become apparent that Israeli soldiers have shot Palestinians whilst queuing or attempting to get food (aid). Some soldiers have admitted they they were told to do this and they obviously feel that this isn't right. At a rough estimate, they appear to be shooting around 30 people a day (possibly more and possibly less). Are soldiers who are killing innocent people whilst simply following orders guilty of war crimes? I mention this as it was the defence used by many Germans who worked in concentration camps during the second world war - they were simply carrying out orders. " If we went back to Oct 7th and Hamas didn't do their evil attack would all this be happening now. Probably not. If the soldiers are killing innocent people my gues it's avengeing those innocent people killed on that day. The irony the festival that was attacked were peace loving and liberal. Everything Hamas hate. What do you do when your people, Jews, are faced with being wiped off the face of the earth by Islamic countries? If anyone should be held to account it's Hamas Hebollah Yemen and Iran to start with. | |||
| |||
"as if the IDF's 'mosquito protocol' isn't awful enough, baiting traps for starving children with food, then executing them is beyond humanity, it's just barbaric savagery in it most animalistic form." How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so?" It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". " Sadly it’s unlikely that Israel will ever see any peace until all of the Palestinians have moved elsewhere. Probably to the UK and Europe, as no other Arab states are going to be dumb enough to take them. | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". Sadly it’s unlikely that Israel will ever see any peace until all of the Palestinians have moved elsewhere. Probably to the UK and Europe, as no other Arab states are going to be dumb enough to take them." This place never ceases to amaze me. People advocating for ethnic cleansing seems to be a new low though, even for the fab forums. "Ethnic cleansing; the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another." | |||
" Sadly it’s unlikely that Israel will ever see any peace until all of the Palestinians have moved elsewhere. Probably to the UK and Europe, as no other Arab states are going to be dumb enough to take them." Where do Palestinian refugees reside today? The majority of Palestinian refugees live not far from their homes of origin either in their own homeland or in neighboring countries. More than half the refugee population lives in Jordan. Approximately 37.7% live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, comprising about 50 percent of the population in those areas. About 15% live in almost equal numbers in Syria and Lebanon. About 355,000 internally displaced Palestinians reside in present-day Israel. The remaining refugee population lives throughout the world, including the rest of the Arab world. Of the 4.3 million refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), 33% live in UNRWA’s 59 refugee camps throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. From Al Awda | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". " So rather than go with simpler explanations of human error, stupidity, petty hate, incompetence, other actors, fog of war, dereliction of duty... You'd rather confect a top-down policy of baiting traps for starving children with food, so as to kill them, to make Gaza uninhabitable? That's really getting into blood libel territory. Unnecessarily looking for motivation for premeditated child murder is... Well, questionable. | |||
"So rather than go with simpler explanations of human error, stupidity, petty hate, incompetence, other actors, fog of war, dereliction of duty... You'd rather confect a top-down policy of baiting traps for starving children with food, so as to kill them, to make Gaza uninhabitable? That's really getting into blood libel territory. Unnecessarily looking for motivation for premeditated child murder is... Well, questionable." I consider you to be one of the more thoughtful and moderate voices here unlike the chap above who is openly promoting crimes against humanity. But you have backed yourself into an intellectual cul-de-sac. Rather than look at the evidence, including readily available statements of intent by the Israeli government, you are performing cartwheels looking for alternate explanations such as "human error, stupidity, petty hate, incompetence, other actors, fog of war, dereliction of duty" and ultimately when credulity is stretch to breaking point you imply I am antisemitic. I've been down this road a long time. I began as a Zionist in the 1980's and only when I could no longer stomach some of the hatred being spouted by people on "my side" did I begin to actually question their narrative. You apparently haven't gone down that road, so please don't accuse me of antisemitism. | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". " I have a few questions regarding this. Is the scheme voluntary and if a person from Gaza wants to leave, are they supported in leaving and found a new place to live that they can accpet or reject? | |||
"I have a few questions regarding this. Is the scheme voluntary and if a person from Gaza wants to leave, are they supported in leaving and found a new place to live that they can accpet or reject? " Define voluntary. | |||
"I have a few questions regarding this. Is the scheme voluntary and if a person from Gaza wants to leave, are they supported in leaving and found a new place to live that they can accpet or reject? Define voluntary." Let’s call it a matter of choice, if that helps clarify. I’m asking whether individuals are genuinely free to leave or stay and what support they have if they choose to leave. | |||
" Rather than look at the evidence, including readily available statements of intent by the Israeli government, you are performing cartwheels looking for alternate explanations such as "human error, stupidity, petty hate, incompetence, other actors, fog of war, dereliction of duty" and ultimately when credulity is stretch to breaking point you imply I am antisemitic. " You are not necessarily antisemitic, but jumping to the most extreme option when other, more plausible, explanations exist suggest that you are driven by an intense dislike of a certain camp (which could be a political movement, rather than a race of people). We will have to agree to disagree on whether it's more plausible that it's (a) a government plot to bait children into a death trap then murder them in a premeditated act (the allegation), or (b) wanton negligence, incompetence or isolated acts of hatred. Surely there are simpler ways to make Gaza unappealing, with less political backlash. | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". Sadly it’s unlikely that Israel will ever see any peace until all of the Palestinians have moved elsewhere. Probably to the UK and Europe, as no other Arab states are going to be dumb enough to take them. This place never ceases to amaze me. People advocating for ethnic cleansing seems to be a new low though, even for the fab forums. "Ethnic cleansing; the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another."" Every one is entitled to their opinions no matter how vile they may seem to you and me. But what I find weird, it's the same forumites, that are so pro Israel and advocate the continuation of the Gaza shooting gallery. Also want a full out war with Iran. They are usually the same voices that are complaining about migrants and how everyone of them is a economic migrant or secret sleeper for a future attack. | |||
"It wasn’t just the Germans of course. The Allies bombed German cities regardless of civilian casualties. The US dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese cities. No war crimes committed." The crime in a war is to be the loser. Winners don't commit crimes. | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". Sadly it’s unlikely that Israel will ever see any peace until all of the Palestinians have moved elsewhere. Probably to the UK and Europe, as no other Arab states are going to be dumb enough to take them. This place never ceases to amaze me. People advocating for ethnic cleansing seems to be a new low though, even for the fab forums. "Ethnic cleansing; the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another." Every one is entitled to their opinions no matter how vile they may seem to you and me. But what I find weird, it's the same forumites, that are so pro Israel and advocate the continuation of the Gaza shooting gallery. Also want a full out war with Iran. They are usually the same voices that are complaining about migrants and how everyone of them is a economic migrant or secret sleeper for a future attack. " It's the same media outlets that demonise immigrants, are those that are pretending that the genocide isn't happening, that are focussing the ire on people who protest against the genocide, and that are not reporting on the UK governments role in the mass slaughter. So I can we why the same people who are advocating for ethnic cleansing would also be complaining about immigrants. Completely missing the point that the wars are displacing more people from their homes. | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". Sadly it’s unlikely that Israel will ever see any peace until all of the Palestinians have moved elsewhere. Probably to the UK and Europe, as no other Arab states are going to be dumb enough to take them. This place never ceases to amaze me. People advocating for ethnic cleansing seems to be a new low though, even for the fab forums. "Ethnic cleansing; the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another."" I am merely stating the facts. I advocate for nothing. This war has been going on for decades and is unlikely to stop while two groups of people who hate each other continue to live in close proximity. People advocate for a “two state solution” but the October 7th terrorist pogrom has put that idea to bed. So what is the solution? In reality we are likely to see a continuation of what has been going on for decades. Israel responds to terrorist attacks and temporarily suppresses the violence. Over time Israel becomes complacent and carries on living the life one would expect of a modern successful democracy. Meanwhile the terrorists use the imposed peace in their fascist backwater to oppress their “own people”, regroup and carry out another attack. Israel responds etc. and on it goes. | |||
"Let’s call it a matter of choice, if that helps clarify. I’m asking whether individuals are genuinely free to leave or stay and what support they have if they choose to leave." I suppose supporters of the Israeli government and the IDF will argue that any Palestinians that remain will be genuinely free to stay. What would happen to any people who do stay isn't known but according to another JC article the Finance Minister said Israel's military campaign in Gaza would “make more areas look like Jabaliya, and this will convince many Gazans to leave” and "If we take out 10,000 Gazans a day, within four months the Strip will be empty. That would be the best solution – for us and for them.”. I'm not sure what carrots are being offered beyond "establishing movement routes, pedestrian checks at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip” and infrastructure to enable people to leave (according to CNN). But I'd not be suprised if eventually there'll be a finacial grant offered. My guess is that pressure is being put on Egypt by the US and Israel to build enormous refugee camps in the Sinai but any such negotiations will be being held in secret and I have no idea whether the Egyptians will go along. | |||
" My guess is that pressure is being put on Egypt by the US and Israel to build enormous refugee camps in the Sinai but any such negotiations will be being held in secret and I have no idea whether the Egyptians will go along. " There's a possibility that Egypt will take overall responsibility for Gaza, but that is possibly just rumour. | |||
"You are not necessarily antisemitic, but jumping to the most extreme option when other, more plausible, explanations exist suggest that you are driven by an intense dislike of a certain camp (which could be a political movement, rather than a race of people). We will have to agree to disagree on whether it's more plausible that it's (a) a government plot to bait children into a death trap then murder them in a premeditated act (the allegation), or (b) wanton negligence, incompetence or isolated acts of hatred." I've encountered the "you are not necessarily {insert your favourite slur}" tactic many times before. It makes the person using it look like they know they have lost the argument but don't want their reaction to look too offensive. If you genuinely believe that the IDF are a bunch of incompetent idiots with a tiny rogue element who disobey orders then there's no rational argument that will persuade you of the truth. "Surely there are simpler ways to make Gaza unappealing, with less political backlash." What political backlash? | |||
"Let’s call it a matter of choice, if that helps clarify. I’m asking whether individuals are genuinely free to leave or stay and what support they have if they choose to leave. I suppose supporters of the Israeli government and the IDF will argue that any Palestinians that remain will be genuinely free to stay. What would happen to any people who do stay isn't known but according to another JC article the Finance Minister said Israel's military campaign in Gaza would “make more areas look like Jabaliya, and this will convince many Gazans to leave” and "If we take out 10,000 Gazans a day, within four months the Strip will be empty. That would be the best solution – for us and for them.”. I'm not sure what carrots are being offered beyond "establishing movement routes, pedestrian checks at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip” and infrastructure to enable people to leave (according to CNN). But I'd not be suprised if eventually there'll be a finacial grant offered. My guess is that pressure is being put on Egypt by the US and Israel to build enormous refugee camps in the Sinai but any such negotiations will be being held in secret and I have no idea whether the Egyptians will go along. " This is a difficult scenario to fully understand. If there are people who want to leave Gaza and that can be facilitated and supported, that must be a change for good. Those that want to remain are a different proposition. If the numbers in Gaza were halved, would the land be halved too and rebuilt? There are unknowns here as you say, I would be very surprised if large numbers wanted to leave without a full guarantee of what the future would look like. Forcing this would be a disaster for Israel, not only would they lose international support, they would be facing an enemy that would have swelled in numbers. | |||
"This is a difficult scenario to fully understand. If there are people who want to leave Gaza and that can be facilitated and supported, that must be a change for good. Those that want to remain are a different proposition. If the numbers in Gaza were halved, would the land be halved too and rebuilt? There are unknowns here as you say, I would be very surprised if large numbers wanted to leave without a full guarantee of what the future would look like. Forcing this would be a disaster for Israel, not only would they lose international support, they would be facing an enemy that would have swelled in numbers." I don't think Israeli government policy is either fully-formed or coherent. They, like their enemies, are driven by ideology, fear, hatred, frustration and various other factors. Moving two million Palestinians a couple of hundred miles down the road is unlikely to increase Israeli security. I've been arguing for over four decades that the two-state solution is the only long-term viable answer but this requires willing on all sides. I'm certain that Hamas won't be part of this but AFAIK they actually recognize this. The main problem now is to persuade Israelis that their future security and prosperity depends on a just solution. We are a long way off. As I've said before there are a couple of relatively "easy" moves that could improve the situation. First an immediate ceasefire, second for the Israeli government to release Marwan Barghouti. He is perhaps the only credible leader who could unite the Palestinians enough for them to put down their weapons and work towards a long-term peace. | |||
"This is a difficult scenario to fully understand. If there are people who want to leave Gaza and that can be facilitated and supported, that must be a change for good. Those that want to remain are a different proposition. If the numbers in Gaza were halved, would the land be halved too and rebuilt? There are unknowns here as you say, I would be very surprised if large numbers wanted to leave without a full guarantee of what the future would look like. Forcing this would be a disaster for Israel, not only would they lose international support, they would be facing an enemy that would have swelled in numbers. I don't think Israeli government policy is either fully-formed or coherent. They, like their enemies, are driven by ideology, fear, hatred, frustration and various other factors. Moving two million Palestinians a couple of hundred miles down the road is unlikely to increase Israeli security. I've been arguing for over four decades that the two-state solution is the only long-term viable answer but this requires willing on all sides. I'm certain that Hamas won't be part of this but AFAIK they actually recognize this. The main problem now is to persuade Israelis that their future security and prosperity depends on a just solution. We are a long way off. As I've said before there are a couple of relatively "easy" moves that could improve the situation. First an immediate ceasefire, second for the Israeli government to release Marwan Barghouti. He is perhaps the only credible leader who could unite the Palestinians enough for them to put down their weapons and work towards a long-term peace." I would have thought the easiest first move would be for Hamas to return the Israeli hostages, or what’s left of them. | |||
"This is a difficult scenario to fully understand. If there are people who want to leave Gaza and that can be facilitated and supported, that must be a change for good. Those that want to remain are a different proposition. If the numbers in Gaza were halved, would the land be halved too and rebuilt? There are unknowns here as you say, I would be very surprised if large numbers wanted to leave without a full guarantee of what the future would look like. Forcing this would be a disaster for Israel, not only would they lose international support, they would be facing an enemy that would have swelled in numbers. I don't think Israeli government policy is either fully-formed or coherent. They, like their enemies, are driven by ideology, fear, hatred, frustration and various other factors. Moving two million Palestinians a couple of hundred miles down the road is unlikely to increase Israeli security. I've been arguing for over four decades that the two-state solution is the only long-term viable answer but this requires willing on all sides. I'm certain that Hamas won't be part of this but AFAIK they actually recognize this. The main problem now is to persuade Israelis that their future security and prosperity depends on a just solution. We are a long way off. As I've said before there are a couple of relatively "easy" moves that could improve the situation. First an immediate ceasefire, second for the Israeli government to release Marwan Barghouti. He is perhaps the only credible leader who could unite the Palestinians enough for them to put down their weapons and work towards a long-term peace." A 2 state solution will never work, it is wishful thinking now. There needs to be another way forward. | |||
"A 2 state solution will never work, it is wishful thinking now. There needs to be another way forward." Such as? | |||
| |||
"A 2 state solution will never work, it is wishful thinking now. There needs to be another way forward. Such as?" I haven't got a clue. | |||
"The IDF and Israeli government are scum. I feel sorry for the kind Israelis living under the regime and even more sorry for the innocent Palestinians being ethnically cleansed. Shame on the world for allowing this to happen." How do you feel about Hamas and the poor people who live under that regime? | |||
"I haven't got a clue." That's what I thought. No disrespect to you. I think you often make solid points and your heart is more or less in the right place. There isn't any realistic solution other than two states. It'll be an uphill struggle and I suspect I'll be dead long before I/P relations are fully normalized, but after thinking deeply about this and discussing it with people on all sides for what seems like an eternity, I can't see any other option. | |||
"I haven't got a clue. That's what I thought. No disrespect to you. I think you often make solid points and your heart is more or less in the right place. There isn't any realistic solution other than two states. It'll be an uphill struggle and I suspect I'll be dead long before I/P relations are fully normalized, but after thinking deeply about this and discussing it with people on all sides for what seems like an eternity, I can't see any other option." When I say I haven't got a clue, I know it isn't the 2 state solution that has long gone. The way forward for Israel and Palestinians living in Gaza, not a clue how that can be resolved without it ending in war again, nor as anyone else, if they had we would know about it. | |||
"When I say I haven't got a clue, I know it isn't the 2 state solution that has long gone. The way forward for Israel and Palestinians living in Gaza, not a clue how that can be resolved without it ending in war again, nor as anyone else, if they had we would know about it." Why do you think a two-state solution is long gone? As I've discussed with you before I don't think the Israeli government has ever offered a genuine two-state solution but rather a continuation of the status quo with the OPTs dressed up as a "state". They present maps that superfiically look reasonable but offer no sovereighty to those areas on the map designated as Palestinian. It might be useful to examine this in more depth as it seems many on the pro-Israeli side don't know that the Palestinians have been offering peace based on a two-state solution (along the 1967 ceasefire lines) since the 1980s. | |||
"There’s loads of human rights lawyers in this country that would get them off Scott free and get them a council house while their at it. I’m not sure where the line is drawn or how it’s drawn. If you’re in fear for your own life like many low ranking German soldiers would have been, then perhaps it’s a valid defence. But I’m not sure how individuals in the Israeli forces will be brought before a court without their government’s cooperation, which they ain’t gonna give " | |||
"When I say I haven't got a clue, I know it isn't the 2 state solution that has long gone. The way forward for Israel and Palestinians living in Gaza, not a clue how that can be resolved without it ending in war again, nor as anyone else, if they had we would know about it. Why do you think a two-state solution is long gone? As I've discussed with you before I don't think the Israeli government has ever offered a genuine two-state solution but rather a continuation of the status quo with the OPTs dressed up as a "state". They present maps that superfiically look reasonable but offer no sovereighty to those areas on the map designated as Palestinian. It might be useful to examine this in more depth as it seems many on the pro-Israeli side don't know that the Palestinians have been offering peace based on a two-state solution (along the 1967 ceasefire lines) since the 1980s." The trust was never really there for this to work in the first place, and that is on both sides. Take phase 2 of the ceasefire as working example of the lack of trust, neither side trusted the other to the point the ceasefire was dropped and phase 2 aborted. | |||
"The trust was never really there for this to work in the first place, and that is on both sides. Take phase 2 of the ceasefire as working example of the lack of trust, neither side trusted the other to the point the ceasefire was dropped and phase 2 aborted." That will be the ceasefire from 19 Jan to 18 March 2025 right? Here's the timeline for IDF action during this ceasefire... 20 Jan: 3 killed 22 Jan:1 killed 23 Jan: 2 killed 28 Jan: 2 killed 31 Jan: 1 killed 2 Feb: 1 killed 5 Feb: 1 killed 9 Feb 3 killed 10 Feb: 2 killed 11 Feb: 1 killed 12 Feb: 1 killed 13 Feb: 1 killed 16 Feb:3 killed 19 Feb: 1 killed 20 Feb: 1 killed 21 Feb: 1 killed 23 Feb: 1 killed 27 Feb: 1 killed 28 Feb: 1 killed 2 Mar: 3 killed 4 Mar: 1 killed 6 Mar: 3 killed 10 Mar: 2 killed 11 Mar: 5 killed 14 Mar: 5 killed 15 Mar: 12 killed 18 Mar: 400+ killed I can see why the Palestinians might not trust the Israeli government yet they were still willing to move to phase 2 AFAIK. | |||
| |||
"The trust was never really there for this to work in the first place, and that is on both sides. Take phase 2 of the ceasefire as working example of the lack of trust, neither side trusted the other to the point the ceasefire was dropped and phase 2 aborted. That will be the ceasefire from 19 Jan to 18 March 2025 right? Here's the timeline for IDF action during this ceasefire... 20 Jan: 3 killed 22 Jan:1 killed 23 Jan: 2 killed 28 Jan: 2 killed 31 Jan: 1 killed 2 Feb: 1 killed 5 Feb: 1 killed 9 Feb 3 killed 10 Feb: 2 killed 11 Feb: 1 killed 12 Feb: 1 killed 13 Feb: 1 killed 16 Feb:3 killed 19 Feb: 1 killed 20 Feb: 1 killed 21 Feb: 1 killed 23 Feb: 1 killed 27 Feb: 1 killed 28 Feb: 1 killed 2 Mar: 3 killed 4 Mar: 1 killed 6 Mar: 3 killed 10 Mar: 2 killed 11 Mar: 5 killed 14 Mar: 5 killed 15 Mar: 12 killed 18 Mar: 400+ killed I can see why the Palestinians might not trust the Israeli government yet they were still willing to move to phase 2 AFAIK." You have missed the actuals completely. I thought you were more informed from your posts. | |||
"That channel 4 documentary, Gaza, doctors under attack… rough watch!!! I have an over under on the amount of time of it being “antisemitic” being dragged up…." Also fair play to channel 4 making the decision to show it, when the BBC refused to do so Also… no ads! | |||
"That channel 4 documentary, Gaza, doctors under attack… rough watch!!! I have an over under on the amount of time of it being “antisemitic” being dragged up…. Also fair play to channel 4 making the decision to show it, when the BBC refused to do so Also… no ads! " it's to be expected when the owner of the far-right extremist newspaper 'the Jewish Chronicle' and tory party Spad is given the 'cronyism at the heart of politics' board position of directly influencing BBC output, to ensure that it reflects a position being well to the right of the mainstream, by having the final say of what can be broadcast and what must be surpressed. Robbie Gibb has got to go, but not before a thorough investigation into his murky and sinister dealings in public life. | |||
"You have missed the actuals completely. I thought you were more informed from your posts." Actuals is a slightly odd choce of word. Are you an accountant? Anyway, unless you can be more specific about what you mean by the actuals and how I've missed them your comment is pretty meaningless. | |||
"You have missed the actuals completely. I thought you were more informed from your posts. Actuals is a slightly odd choce of word. Are you an accountant? Anyway, unless you can be more specific about what you mean by the actuals and how I've missed them your comment is pretty meaningless. " | |||
"You have missed the actuals completely. I thought you were more informed from your posts. Actuals is a slightly odd choce of word. Are you an accountant? Anyway, unless you can be more specific about what you mean by the actuals and how I've missed them your comment is pretty meaningless. " If you slice the posts the core of the conversation will become lost... The reason phase 2 did not happen was both sides had a hard line they would not cross. Israel were required to halt the war and leave Gaza, this was something they couldn't do as the destruction of Hamas is their objective. Hamas were required to give up its last hostages, they wouldn't do that as it removed any further bargaining power they thought they had.. When you look at this holistically, it shows you clearly that a 2 state solution will never work, there is zero trust and 100% hate on both sides. | |||
"If you slice the posts the core of the conversation will become lost..." I crop quotations because it's really annoying seeing the same text repeated over and over again and I credit readers with being intelligent enough to either recall what they've just read or to scroll up to refresh their memories. "The reason phase 2 did not happen was both sides had a hard line they would not cross. Israel were required to halt the war and leave Gaza, this was something they couldn't do as the destruction of Hamas is their objective. Hamas were required to give up its last hostages, they wouldn't do that as it removed any further bargaining power they thought they had.. When you look at this holistically, it shows you clearly that a 2 state solution will never work, there is zero trust and 100% hate on both sides." What happened was that both Hamas and the Israeil government agreed a deal based on UN Security Council Resolution 2735. It consisted of three phases each of which was supposed to last 42 days. Phase 1 was a temporary ceasefire, the release of 33 hostages and many Palestinians, the lifting of aid blockade and various other measures. Phase 2 was to be a periiod of sustainable ceasefire, leading to the release of all living hostages and the removal of Israeli ground troops from Gaza. Phase 3 was supposed to be a final end to the war with the release of the bodies of dead hostages and rebuilding of Gaza to begin. Phase 1 was agreed in detail and during the first phase details about Phase 2 were supposed to have been finalized. The day after Phase 1 came into effect the IDF broke the ceasefire and continued to do so multiple times by continuing to kill Palestinians as I outlined in the earlier post. Also the Israeli government refused to negotiate the details of Phase 2 and insisted that the terms of the deal be changed. Hamas insisted that they should stick to the original deal. Then on 18th March the IDF launched a massive attack on Gaza killing over 400 people including many women and children. Your argument seems to be that Hamas wouldn't stick to their side of the agreement but I can't see any substantive evidence for this. There were disputes on both sides during Phase 1 but the process collapsed because the Israelis ended the deal and launched Operation Might and Sword. If the Israeli government never meant to follow the terms of the deal then they shouldn't have agreed to it. | |||
"You have missed the actuals completely. I thought you were more informed from your posts. Actuals is a slightly odd choce of word. Are you an accountant? Anyway, unless you can be more specific about what you mean by the actuals and how I've missed them your comment is pretty meaningless. If you slice the posts the core of the conversation will become lost... The reason phase 2 did not happen was both sides had a hard line they would not cross. Israel were required to halt the war and leave Gaza, this was something they couldn't do as the destruction of Hamas is their objective. Hamas were required to give up its last hostages, they wouldn't do that as it removed any further bargaining power they thought they had.. When you look at this holistically, it shows you clearly that a 2 state solution will never work, there is zero trust and 100% hate on both sides." I hate to call you out… that second to last paragraph is not true Under phase 1 , Hamas we’re obligated to release 4 hostages a week for the 6 weeks of which the ceasefire was in place.. and they complied with that (whether you liked it or not) Hamas want to go on to stage 2 which was the agreed timeframe, Israel decided to starve the population and withhold food and other humanitarian aid in an attempt to force an extension to stage 1 You might not like the narrative, but if you are going to be an honest broker, please don’t mislead people | |||
"If you slice the posts the core of the conversation will become lost... I crop quotations because it's really annoying seeing the same text repeated over and over again and I credit readers with being intelligent enough to either recall what they've just read or to scroll up to refresh their memories. The reason phase 2 did not happen was both sides had a hard line they would not cross. Israel were required to halt the war and leave Gaza, this was something they couldn't do as the destruction of Hamas is their objective. Hamas were required to give up its last hostages, they wouldn't do that as it removed any further bargaining power they thought they had.. When you look at this holistically, it shows you clearly that a 2 state solution will never work, there is zero trust and 100% hate on both sides. What happened was that both Hamas and the Israeil government agreed a deal based on UN Security Council Resolution 2735. It consisted of three phases each of which was supposed to last 42 days. Phase 1 was a temporary ceasefire, the release of 33 hostages and many Palestinians, the lifting of aid blockade and various other measures. Phase 2 was to be a periiod of sustainable ceasefire, leading to the release of all living hostages and the removal of Israeli ground troops from Gaza. Phase 3 was supposed to be a final end to the war with the release of the bodies of dead hostages and rebuilding of Gaza to begin. Phase 1 was agreed in detail and during the first phase details about Phase 2 were supposed to have been finalized. The day after Phase 1 came into effect the IDF broke the ceasefire and continued to do so multiple times by continuing to kill Palestinians as I outlined in the earlier post. Also the Israeli government refused to negotiate the details of Phase 2 and insisted that the terms of the deal be changed. Hamas insisted that they should stick to the original deal. Then on 18th March the IDF launched a massive attack on Gaza killing over 400 people including many women and children. Your argument seems to be that Hamas wouldn't stick to their side of the agreement but I can't see any substantive evidence for this. There were disputes on both sides during Phase 1 but the process collapsed because the Israelis ended the deal and launched Operation Might and Sword. If the Israeli government never meant to follow the terms of the deal then they shouldn't have agreed to it. " Every clause was subject to further negotiation. Both parties treated it as a framework. Hamas wouldn't confirm the hostages were alive or dead without a permanent ceasefire. Israel were not going to do that after it found evidence of Hamas digging tunnels, moving rockets and regrouping. Israel wanted to extend phase 1, Hamas wanted to go to phase 2 because that meant Israeli military withdrawal. They wanted Israel to withdraw or they would not release another hostage. However you chop this up my point is clear a 2 state solution is not going to happen. | |||
"You have missed the actuals completely. I thought you were more informed from your posts. Actuals is a slightly odd choce of word. Are you an accountant? Anyway, unless you can be more specific about what you mean by the actuals and how I've missed them your comment is pretty meaningless. If you slice the posts the core of the conversation will become lost... The reason phase 2 did not happen was both sides had a hard line they would not cross. Israel were required to halt the war and leave Gaza, this was something they couldn't do as the destruction of Hamas is their objective. Hamas were required to give up its last hostages, they wouldn't do that as it removed any further bargaining power they thought they had.. When you look at this holistically, it shows you clearly that a 2 state solution will never work, there is zero trust and 100% hate on both sides. I hate to call you out… that second to last paragraph is not true Under phase 1 , Hamas we’re obligated to release 4 hostages a week for the 6 weeks of which the ceasefire was in place.. and they complied with that (whether you liked it or not) Hamas want to go on to stage 2 which was the agreed timeframe, Israel decided to starve the population and withhold food and other humanitarian aid in an attempt to force an extension to stage 1 You might not like the narrative, but if you are going to be an honest broker, please don’t mislead people " I can see how this looks, but I have never spoke about phase 1. I'm talking about why phase 2 didn't go ahead to show an example of the mistrust between the 2 sides. The point was to show why a 2 state solution will never work because of trust. The other poster chopped up the thread and it became less obvious how these things linked together, which is why I mentioned the core message being lost to him. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"You seem to be saying that I've changed the meaning of things by chopping things up. Could you point out exactly where this happened because if I've misrepresented you in some way then I'll apologise." I have already told you that the core of what I was saying was lost due to the way you cut of my posts. This particular tranche was about a 2 state solution not working. I said on the lack of trust for a 2 state solution to work: "The trust was never really there for this to work in the first place, and that is on both sides. Take phase 2 of the ceasefire as working example of the lack of trust, neither side trusted the other to the point the ceasefire was dropped and phase 2 aborted". You then referred to phase 1 and cut out my reference to a 2 state solution above. When I initially said that you were losing the core message of my comment you went onto say you expect the person to remember or to read back. This wasn't my point, a person reading the exchange in isolation could end up with a distorted view, which is exactly what happened. | |||
"You are not necessarily antisemitic, but jumping to the most extreme option when other, more plausible, explanations exist suggest that you are driven by an intense dislike of a certain camp (which could be a political movement, rather than a race of people). We will have to agree to disagree on whether it's more plausible that it's (a) a government plot to bait children into a death trap then murder them in a premeditated act (the allegation), or (b) wanton negligence, incompetence or isolated acts of hatred. I've encountered the "you are not necessarily {insert your favourite slur}" tactic many times before. It makes the person using it look like they know they have lost the argument but don't want their reaction to look too offensive. If you genuinely believe that the IDF are a bunch of incompetent idiots with a tiny rogue element who disobey orders then there's no rational argument that will persuade you of the truth. Surely there are simpler ways to make Gaza unappealing, with less political backlash. What political backlash? "  | |||
"You seem to be saying that I've changed the meaning of things by chopping things up. Could you point out exactly where this happened because if I've misrepresented you in some way then I'll apologise. I have already told you that the core of what I was saying was lost due to the way you cut of my posts. This particular tranche was about a 2 state solution not working. I said on the lack of trust for a 2 state solution to work: "The trust was never really there for this to work in the first place, and that is on both sides. Take phase 2 of the ceasefire as working example of the lack of trust, neither side trusted the other to the point the ceasefire was dropped and phase 2 aborted". You then referred to phase 1 and cut out my reference to a 2 state solution above. When I initially said that you were losing the core message of my comment you went onto say you expect the person to remember or to read back. This wasn't my point, a person reading the exchange in isolation could end up with a distorted view, which is exactly what happened. " I think you are referring to my post which I've copied below. If not then which one? As you can see I didn't chop up your words, I copied them verbatim.. ------------------------------ "The trust was never really there for this to work in the first place, and that is on both sides. Take phase 2 of the ceasefire as working example of the lack of trust, neither side trusted the other to the point the ceasefire was dropped and phase 2 aborted. That will be the ceasefire from 19 Jan to 18 March 2025 right? Here's the timeline for IDF action during this ceasefire... 20 Jan: 3 killed 22 Jan:1 killed 23 Jan: 2 killed 28 Jan: 2 killed 31 Jan: 1 killed 2 Feb: 1 killed 5 Feb: 1 killed 9 Feb 3 killed 10 Feb: 2 killed 11 Feb: 1 killed 12 Feb: 1 killed 13 Feb: 1 killed 16 Feb:3 killed 19 Feb: 1 killed 20 Feb: 1 killed 21 Feb: 1 killed 23 Feb: 1 killed 27 Feb: 1 killed 28 Feb: 1 killed 2 Mar: 3 killed 4 Mar: 1 killed 6 Mar: 3 killed 10 Mar: 2 killed 11 Mar: 5 killed 14 Mar: 5 killed 15 Mar: 12 killed 18 Mar: 400+ killed I can see why the Palestinians might not trust the Israeli government yet they were still willing to move to phase 2 AFAIK." | |||
"It's reported that the Israeli airforce dumped unused munitions on Gaza as they returned from raids on Iran. It seems a bit implausible that they wouldn't unleash all on Iran, so what are we to believe here? " Who is reporting that? It seems quite out of the way for planes returning with almost empty tanks, and Iran wasn't short of targets... | |||
"Who is reporting that? It seems quite out of the way for planes returning with almost empty tanks, and Iran wasn't short of targets..." Apparently the Israeli Air Force have confirmed it was routine. The following is from the Cradle but I think the Telegraph have the same story. "Israeli fighter pilots returning from air defense missions during the 12-day war with Iran were routinely authorized to unload their leftover munitions on the Gaza Strip, according to a 2 July report by Maariv. The move, initially a pilot-led initiative to “assist” Israeli ground forces in Khan Yunis and northern Gaza, was quickly expanded by Air Force Commander Tomer Bar into a daily operational policy across all squadrons." | |||
"Who is reporting that? It seems quite out of the way for planes returning with almost empty tanks, and Iran wasn't short of targets... Apparently the Israeli Air Force have confirmed it was routine. The following is from the Cradle but I think the Telegraph have the same story. Israeli fighter pilots returning from air defense missions during the 12-day war with Iran were routinely authorized to unload their leftover munitions on the Gaza Strip, according to a 2 July report by Maariv. The move, initially a pilot-led initiative to “assist” Israeli ground forces in Khan Yunis and northern Gaza, was quickly expanded by Air Force Commander Tomer Bar into a daily operational policy across all squadrons. " Efficient, but grim. | |||
"The reason phase 2 did not happen was both sides had a hard line they would not cross. Israel were required to halt the war and leave Gaza, this was something they couldn't do as the destruction of Hamas is their objective. Hamas were required to give up its last hostages, they wouldn't do that as it removed any further bargaining power they thought they had.." This implied that Hamas weren't willing to move to Phase 2 which appears to be false according to all the reporting that I've seen. | |||
"NotMe66, I think I understand what you are saying now - that you think I should have included my previous post and your post before that too. But that text was in the post directly above not way up the page. Also it's hard to see how anyone reading my post even in complete isolation could have misunderstood that your point was that there was a lack of trust between the two sides. Fabio's point of contention wan't based on any misunderstanding of your earlier comment, but rather when you said the following... The reason phase 2 did not happen was both sides had a hard line they would not cross. Israel were required to halt the war and leave Gaza, this was something they couldn't do as the destruction of Hamas is their objective. Hamas were required to give up its last hostages, they wouldn't do that as it removed any further bargaining power they thought they had.. This implied that Hamas weren't willing to move to Phase 2 which appears to be false according to all the reporting that I've seen." It think it is best to leave it here, no point going back and forth over what has already happened. I know there is no malice and things can wander out of context rather easily. The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. The 2 state solution won't be on the table for a very long time and by then, it could be a 1 state solution. Time will tell but I'm confident it wont be in my lifetime. | |||
"It think it is best to leave it here, no point going back and forth over what has already happened. I know there is no malice and things can wander out of context rather easily. The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. The 2 state solution won't be on the table for a very long time and by then, it could be a 1 state solution. Time will tell but I'm confident it wont be in my lifetime." I understand your point about trust but your overarching argument is I think quite wrong and dismissive of any path to peace and justice. Even in this context when the IDF were pretty routinely killing Palestinians during what was supposed to be a ceasefire, Hamas were still trying to move to Phase 2 and release the remaining living hostages. So you presented a false narrative. | |||
| |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. " Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. | |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle." The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region? | |||
| |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region?" "The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas," It might be one of their ambitions, but it doesn't relate to the actions of the IDF, not does it relate to the land grabs, taking homes and villages, moving the boarder etc. | |||
| |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region? "The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas," It might be one of their ambitions, but it doesn't relate to the actions of the IDF, not does it relate to the land grabs, taking homes and villages, moving the boarder etc." The main aim of Israel is to destroy Hamas, and Hamas want to destroy Israel. There is a difference here, that Israel on paper are targeting a terrorist organisation and Hamas are targeting a nation. Hamas openly call for the removal of Israel and all of its people, I don't hear much condemnation of this stance from people. I have said from the outset that both need to be criticised, that falls on deaf ears without fail. I have said that a 2 state solution is never going to work because of the hate and mistrust between Hamas and Israel is so deep, especially post Oct 7th. I have nothing further to add to this, going too low level activities doesn't change the high level objectives of both groups. | |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region? "The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas," It might be one of their ambitions, but it doesn't relate to the actions of the IDF, not does it relate to the land grabs, taking homes and villages, moving the boarder etc. The main aim of Israel is to destroy Hamas, and Hamas want to destroy Israel. There is a difference here, that Israel on paper are targeting a terrorist organisation and Hamas are targeting a nation. Hamas openly call for the removal of Israel and all of its people, I don't hear much condemnation of this stance from people. I have said from the outset that both need to be criticised, that falls on deaf ears without fail. I have said that a 2 state solution is never going to work because of the hate and mistrust between Hamas and Israel is so deep, especially post Oct 7th. I have nothing further to add to this, going too low level activities doesn't change the high level objectives of both groups." I agree with most of what you're saying. It's just naive to believe that their aim is to just destroy Hamas. And people can say that Hamas want to destroy Israel, which is abhorrent of course. But Israel is actually destroying Gaza. One gets labelled "terrorist" because they want to do something, and the other isn't labelled the same way, despite actually doing the something. | |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region? "The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas," It might be one of their ambitions, but it doesn't relate to the actions of the IDF, not does it relate to the land grabs, taking homes and villages, moving the boarder etc. The main aim of Israel is to destroy Hamas, and Hamas want to destroy Israel. There is a difference here, that Israel on paper are targeting a terrorist organisation and Hamas are targeting a nation. Hamas openly call for the removal of Israel and all of its people, I don't hear much condemnation of this stance from people. I have said from the outset that both need to be criticised, that falls on deaf ears without fail. I have said that a 2 state solution is never going to work because of the hate and mistrust between Hamas and Israel is so deep, especially post Oct 7th. I have nothing further to add to this, going too low level activities doesn't change the high level objectives of both groups. I agree with most of what you're saying. It's just naive to believe that their aim is to just destroy Hamas. And people can say that Hamas want to destroy Israel, which is abhorrent of course. But Israel is actually destroying Gaza. One gets labelled "terrorist" because they want to do something, and the other isn't labelled the same way, despite actually doing the something. " The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. | |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region? "The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas," It might be one of their ambitions, but it doesn't relate to the actions of the IDF, not does it relate to the land grabs, taking homes and villages, moving the boarder etc. The main aim of Israel is to destroy Hamas, and Hamas want to destroy Israel. There is a difference here, that Israel on paper are targeting a terrorist organisation and Hamas are targeting a nation. Hamas openly call for the removal of Israel and all of its people, I don't hear much condemnation of this stance from people. I have said from the outset that both need to be criticised, that falls on deaf ears without fail. I have said that a 2 state solution is never going to work because of the hate and mistrust between Hamas and Israel is so deep, especially post Oct 7th. I have nothing further to add to this, going too low level activities doesn't change the high level objectives of both groups. I agree with most of what you're saying. It's just naive to believe that their aim is to just destroy Hamas. And people can say that Hamas want to destroy Israel, which is abhorrent of course. But Israel is actually destroying Gaza. One gets labelled "terrorist" because they want to do something, and the other isn't labelled the same way, despite actually doing the something. " I guess that's what happens when you kid_nap 250 people and dig tunnels everywhere to stage attacks and hide those staging them | |||
| |||
"The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity." This is the standard Likud narrative. (Likud being Netanyahu's party for anyone who doesn't know.) There are two difficulties with it. 1) There is no mention of the Israeli government's policies towards other Palestinians. As if those policies are somehow inconsequential and/or uncontroversial. 2) It completely ignores the shift in position of Hamas between 1988 and 2017. Something I hope to discuss a little later. But for the sake of argument let's park that for while and assume that Hamas is fully commited to destroying Israel. While it's true that the Israeli government wants to destroy Hamas, Likud's main aim since well before Hamas was founded in 1987 was set out in their 1977 platform which is when Israeli voters first elected them... "The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace." The same rejection of a Palestinian State is found again in their 1999 platform... "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration, and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs." I think Netanyahu briefly toyed with the idea of some kind of pretend Palestinian state especially under some arm twisting by Obama but has basically always rejected a two-state solution regardless of what the Palestinians said or did. Hamas just provides convenient cover for a long standing policy. So if Hamas is destroyed what will happen to the remaining Palestinians? Will the settlement programme and displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank continue? | |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region? "The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas," It might be one of their ambitions, but it doesn't relate to the actions of the IDF, not does it relate to the land grabs, taking homes and villages, moving the boarder etc. The main aim of Israel is to destroy Hamas, and Hamas want to destroy Israel. There is a difference here, that Israel on paper are targeting a terrorist organisation and Hamas are targeting a nation. Hamas openly call for the removal of Israel and all of its people, I don't hear much condemnation of this stance from people. I have said from the outset that both need to be criticised, that falls on deaf ears without fail. I have said that a 2 state solution is never going to work because of the hate and mistrust between Hamas and Israel is so deep, especially post Oct 7th. I have nothing further to add to this, going too low level activities doesn't change the high level objectives of both groups. I agree with most of what you're saying. It's just naive to believe that their aim is to just destroy Hamas. And people can say that Hamas want to destroy Israel, which is abhorrent of course. But Israel is actually destroying Gaza. One gets labelled "terrorist" because they want to do something, and the other isn't labelled the same way, despite actually doing the something. The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. " Ethnic cleansing, as the other chap advocated for, is probably not the solution. It'll be a long long road to any kind of lasting peace. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. | |||
" The point I was making is very simple, there was little trust before Oct 7th, there is zero trust now only fear and hate. Probable announcement of a ceasefire along the lines of the USA proposal forthcoming. Hamas & Israel have both agreed in principle. The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas, ceasefire or no ceasefire. The ambition of Hamas is not to be destroyed by Israel, and to destroy Israel at any given opportunity. Do you believe a ceasefire will last? Do you think a 2 state solution is the answer to peace in the region? "The ambition of Israel is to destroy Hamas," It might be one of their ambitions, but it doesn't relate to the actions of the IDF, not does it relate to the land grabs, taking homes and villages, moving the boarder etc. The main aim of Israel is to destroy Hamas, and Hamas want to destroy Israel. There is a difference here, that Israel on paper are targeting a terrorist organisation and Hamas are targeting a nation. Hamas openly call for the removal of Israel and all of its people, I don't hear much condemnation of this stance from people. I have said from the outset that both need to be criticised, that falls on deaf ears without fail. I have said that a 2 state solution is never going to work because of the hate and mistrust between Hamas and Israel is so deep, especially post Oct 7th. I have nothing further to add to this, going too low level activities doesn't change the high level objectives of both groups. I agree with most of what you're saying. It's just naive to believe that their aim is to just destroy Hamas. And people can say that Hamas want to destroy Israel, which is abhorrent of course. But Israel is actually destroying Gaza. One gets labelled "terrorist" because they want to do something, and the other isn't labelled the same way, despite actually doing the something. I guess that's what happens when you kid_nap 250 people and dig tunnels everywhere to stage attacks and hide those staging them" Is that worse than mass slaughter and starvation of over 30,000 innocent people? | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion." Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could?" I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". I have a few questions regarding this. Is the scheme voluntary and if a person from Gaza wants to leave, are they supported in leaving and found a new place to live that they can accpet or reject? " Your missing the point as to why anyone should feel the need to leave their homeland | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". I have a few questions regarding this. Is the scheme voluntary and if a person from Gaza wants to leave, are they supported in leaving and found a new place to live that they can accpet or reject? Your missing the point as to why anyone should feel the need to leave their homeland " No I'm not. There are going to be people living in Gaza that want an out because of the war, living in a walled community and or because they are living under a Hamas regime. My questions are clear, is this voluntary, will they be assisted if they want to leave and if so will they be supported. Anything else you have read into the above is you filling in blanks that don't exist. | |||
"How would baiting traps to kill starving children help anyone at all? Why would that be a strategy? Do you actually believe that this is what's happening? What possible tactical or strategic benefits could there be, that are not heavily outweighed by the obvious drawbacks of doing so? It makes complete sense once you realise that the goal is to make Gaza uninhabitable. Katz's Ministry of Defence has created a new directorate to facilitate “voluntary emigration” out of Gaza. Finance Minister Smotrich said the Israeli government is actively developing a large-scale emigration plan in coordination with the US government, suggesting a target of 10,000 people per day. Source: The Jewish Chronicle "Israel creates new military body to encourage ‘voluntary emigration’ from Gaza". I have a few questions regarding this. Is the scheme voluntary and if a person from Gaza wants to leave, are they supported in leaving and found a new place to live that they can accpet or reject? Your missing the point as to why anyone should feel the need to leave their homeland No I'm not. There are going to be people living in Gaza that want an out because of the war, living in a walled community and or because they are living under a Hamas regime. My questions are clear, is this voluntary, will they be assisted if they want to leave and if so will they be supported. Anything else you have read into the above is you filling in blanks that don't exist. " So instead of calling for the war to stop and then legitimately asking if people want to leave your reasoning is bomb the place and support them leaving? | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. " By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. " I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I can imagine "the hate between the two sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens" being something George Orwell would have written about Airstrip One's perpetual war. " You’re misrepresenting what I said and shifting into personal attack. I referenced someone else’s comment that peace might only come if Palestinians leave and used that to highlight a historical pattern, not to endorse the idea. I even said clearly, maybe it happens, maybe it doesn’t. The key point being that deep, mutual hatred prevents peace, regardless of who stays or goes. Please leave it here now. | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. " This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x" I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine " Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x | |||
"I can imagine "the hate between the two sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens" being something George Orwell would have written about Airstrip One's perpetual war. You’re misrepresenting what I said and shifting into personal attack. I referenced someone else’s comment that peace might only come if Palestinians leave and used that to highlight a historical pattern, not to endorse the idea. I even said clearly, maybe it happens, maybe it doesn’t. The key point being that deep, mutual hatred prevents peace, regardless of who stays or goes. Please leave it here now." I'm neither misrepresenting you nor shifting into personal attack. I'm not even talking about the ethnic cleansing issue here. Your running theme is that peace is impossible because there is too much hate on both sides and while that's a perfectly respectable position to take, it is an extremely dystopian viewpoint. Personally, I don't think peace is impossible. There have been all kinds of horrific conflicts in the past that have been resolved. | |||
"I can imagine "the hate between the two sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens" being something George Orwell would have written about Airstrip One's perpetual war. You’re misrepresenting what I said and shifting into personal attack. I referenced someone else’s comment that peace might only come if Palestinians leave and used that to highlight a historical pattern, not to endorse the idea. I even said clearly, maybe it happens, maybe it doesn’t. The key point being that deep, mutual hatred prevents peace, regardless of who stays or goes. Please leave it here now. I'm neither misrepresenting you nor shifting into personal attack. I'm not even talking about the ethnic cleansing issue here. Your running theme is that peace is impossible because there is too much hate on both sides and while that's a perfectly respectable position to take, it is an extremely dystopian viewpoint. Personally, I don't think peace is impossible. There have been all kinds of horrific conflicts in the past that have been resolved. " Some major ones by conflict, Mrs x | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x" Seeing as they live in Qatar.... | |||
| |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar...." Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar....Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x" You seem to know more than the IDF, surely missed could slit a few throats in Qatar and get this war over with. Rather than indiscriminately kill civilians and bomb schools, hospitals and starve a population. You know genocide, just so Netanyahu can avoid time in a court room | |||
| |||
"Some major ones by conflict, Mrs x" I presume what you mean is overwhelming military victory for one side and either the surrender or annihilation of the other. I could see this maybe ending the war in Gaza with Hamas although it isn't straightforward. But what would "victory" for Israel look like in the wider Israeli Palestinian conflict? | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar....Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x You seem to know more than the IDF, surely missed could slit a few throats in Qatar and get this war over with. Rather than indiscriminately kill civilians and bomb schools, hospitals and starve a population. You know genocide, just so Netanyahu can avoid time in a court room " Netanyahu case is still ongoing. And its not like in the movies, some super soldier squad go in and get the job done. Maybe the Israelis want to destroy the tunnel network in Gaza. I dont know im not an Israeli minister. And as for genocide can you account for why such a small percentage of the population has been killed in Haza if that really is the aim of Israel? Mrs x | |||
| |||
| |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar....Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x You seem to know more than the IDF, surely missed could slit a few throats in Qatar and get this war over with. Rather than indiscriminately kill civilians and bomb schools, hospitals and starve a population. You know genocide, just so Netanyahu can avoid time in a court room Netanyahu case is still ongoing. And its not like in the movies, some super soldier squad go in and get the job done. Maybe the Israelis want to destroy the tunnel network in Gaza. I dont know im not an Israeli minister. And as for genocide can you account for why such a small percentage of the population has been killed in Haza if that really is the aim of Israel? Mrs x" 60, 0000 of 2 million isn't small. Also it's about the starvation, the bombing of schools and hospitals the disallowing of journalists in fact the killing of journalists. Netanyahu knows he has to have a war a sense of jeopardy to keep him in power. Get him gone!!! The actual leader of the Knesset called for killing of all Palestinian men just the other day. It's genocide. And anyone who stands with or excuses Netanyahu at this point is complicit. | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar....Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x You seem to know more than the IDF, surely missed could slit a few throats in Qatar and get this war over with. Rather than indiscriminately kill civilians and bomb schools, hospitals and starve a population. You know genocide, just so Netanyahu can avoid time in a court room Netanyahu case is still ongoing. And its not like in the movies, some super soldier squad go in and get the job done. Maybe the Israelis want to destroy the tunnel network in Gaza. I dont know im not an Israeli minister. And as for genocide can you account for why such a small percentage of the population has been killed in Haza if that really is the aim of Israel? Mrs x" It was in Iran, they Lin pointed the leaders of the Iranian army and bombed or killed those individuals | |||
| |||
"Likud " Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x" No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar....Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x You seem to know more than the IDF, surely missed could slit a few throats in Qatar and get this war over with. Rather than indiscriminately kill civilians and bomb schools, hospitals and starve a population. You know genocide, just so Netanyahu can avoid time in a court room Netanyahu case is still ongoing. And its not like in the movies, some super soldier squad go in and get the job done. Maybe the Israelis want to destroy the tunnel network in Gaza. I dont know im not an Israeli minister. And as for genocide can you account for why such a small percentage of the population has been killed in Haza if that really is the aim of Israel? Mrs x 60, 0000 of 2 million isn't small. Also it's about the starvation, the bombing of schools and hospitals the disallowing of journalists in fact the killing of journalists. Netanyahu knows he has to have a war a sense of jeopardy to keep him in power. Get him gone!!! The actual leader of the Knesset called for killing of all Palestinian men just the other day. It's genocide. And anyone who stands with or excuses Netanyahu at this point is complicit." It is as a percentage. It's 2.5%, meaning 97.5% are still alive. It's actually less then that because the figures released dont differentiate between combatants and none combatants. And how am I in any way complicit? I've not shot, bombed or killed anyone. As for schools and hospitals being targeted then maybe terrorists should stop using them to hide oil in and place weapons there. Of all the hundreds of miles of tunnels, built at enormous cost, why havent Hamas built bunkers to shelter their civilians in? Why has not one bunker been built? Because Hamas dont care about their own people and gladly see them killed to use as a propaganda tool. Not one bunker built and they knew Israel would respond to Oct 7th, not one, why? Mrs x | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar....Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x You seem to know more than the IDF, surely missed could slit a few throats in Qatar and get this war over with. Rather than indiscriminately kill civilians and bomb schools, hospitals and starve a population. You know genocide, just so Netanyahu can avoid time in a court room Netanyahu case is still ongoing. And its not like in the movies, some super soldier squad go in and get the job done. Maybe the Israelis want to destroy the tunnel network in Gaza. I dont know im not an Israeli minister. And as for genocide can you account for why such a small percentage of the population has been killed in Haza if that really is the aim of Israel? Mrs x 60, 0000 of 2 million isn't small. Also it's about the starvation, the bombing of schools and hospitals the disallowing of journalists in fact the killing of journalists. Netanyahu knows he has to have a war a sense of jeopardy to keep him in power. Get him gone!!! The actual leader of the Knesset called for killing of all Palestinian men just the other day. It's genocide. And anyone who stands with or excuses Netanyahu at this point is complicit.It is as a percentage. It's 2.5%, meaning 97.5% are still alive. It's actually less then that because the figures released dont differentiate between combatants and none combatants. And how am I in any way complicit? I've not shot, bombed or killed anyone. As for schools and hospitals being targeted then maybe terrorists should stop using them to hide oil in and place weapons there. Of all the hundreds of miles of tunnels, built at enormous cost, why havent Hamas built bunkers to shelter their civilians in? Why has not one bunker been built? Because Hamas dont care about their own people and gladly see them killed to use as a propaganda tool. Not one bunker built and they knew Israel would respond to Oct 7th, not one, why? Mrs x" Israel had the right to respond! Not genocide!! Even war has rules. The scale of the response is not proportionate! And you keep going on about these tunnels but mossad has actually proven itself to be so knowledgeable and intelligent it can infiltrate Iran but not the lesser funded Hamas?? In fact Netanyahu funded Hamas via Qatar because it was politically expedient to him! | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position." Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x" Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder | |||
"The reality is, both sides are so focused on destroying each other that how they do it seems secondary, the aim justifies any method. Someone recently said there won’t be peace until the Palestinians leave. Historically Jews were forced out of the region in the past. Maybe it plays out in reverse this time, maybe not. But the core of that comment sticks, as long as both sides remain in this cycle of hatred and vengeance, peace is impossible, in my opinion. Can I just check if I'm understanding your argument correctly? You think that Palestinian freedom couldn't lead to peace but the ethnic cleansing of 5 million people could? I'm not sure how you got there from the above... The hate between the 2 sides makes peace impossible regardless of what happens. By trying to parse your rather obscurant writing about the core of the comment sticking when the comment suggested that peace might follow the Palestinians leaving. I see, you are struggling to see how I referenced another poster who said there wont be peace in the region until the Palestinians leave. I said historically the Jews were removed from the area, that was a reference that removal has been seen as an option in the past. I then said maybe it will happen again in reverse (and more importantly) I said or maybe it wont. The core of that comment "stay or leave" changes nothing as long as both sides continue to hate each other, peace will never happen whatever the outcome, even removing one side, history is showing us this is how it is. And for the very last time, the reason why a 2 state solution will not work. This is the truth for the situation as it is currently. Hamas cannot agree to recognise a Jewish state for religious reasons, and its this religious ideology that is behind the hatred. Mrs x I see, Israel can pin point Iranian leaders they wanted dead with little impact on the Iranian people. But Hamas.....they have to carpet bomb Palestine Maybe they should stop scurrying about in tunnels then, Mrs x Seeing as they live in Qatar....Only the leadership, the terrorist are mainly in Gaza, their shithouse leaders live in unbelievable wealth, they stole from their own people.Mrs x You seem to know more than the IDF, surely missed could slit a few throats in Qatar and get this war over with. Rather than indiscriminately kill civilians and bomb schools, hospitals and starve a population. You know genocide, just so Netanyahu can avoid time in a court room Netanyahu case is still ongoing. And its not like in the movies, some super soldier squad go in and get the job done. Maybe the Israelis want to destroy the tunnel network in Gaza. I dont know im not an Israeli minister. And as for genocide can you account for why such a small percentage of the population has been killed in Haza if that really is the aim of Israel? Mrs x 60, 0000 of 2 million isn't small. Also it's about the starvation, the bombing of schools and hospitals the disallowing of journalists in fact the killing of journalists. Netanyahu knows he has to have a war a sense of jeopardy to keep him in power. Get him gone!!! The actual leader of the Knesset called for killing of all Palestinian men just the other day. It's genocide. And anyone who stands with or excuses Netanyahu at this point is complicit.It is as a percentage. It's 2.5%, meaning 97.5% are still alive. It's actually less then that because the figures released dont differentiate between combatants and none combatants. And how am I in any way complicit? I've not shot, bombed or killed anyone. As for schools and hospitals being targeted then maybe terrorists should stop using them to hide oil in and place weapons there. Of all the hundreds of miles of tunnels, built at enormous cost, why havent Hamas built bunkers to shelter their civilians in? Why has not one bunker been built? Because Hamas dont care about their own people and gladly see them killed to use as a propaganda tool. Not one bunker built and they knew Israel would respond to Oct 7th, not one, why? Mrs x Israel had the right to respond! Not genocide!! Even war has rules. The scale of the response is not proportionate! And you keep going on about these tunnels but mossad has actually proven itself to be so knowledgeable and intelligent it can infiltrate Iran but not the lesser funded Hamas?? In fact Netanyahu funded Hamas via Qatar because it was politically expedient to him! " I'm not denying cash was given to Hamas but that was a mistake, the Israelis know this too. But the tunnels are a huge factor. They are actually longer than the entire London Underground. To try and fit a conflict in such conditions would have resulted in tremendous loss of life and therefore, maybe, Israel chose not to take this option. It's not genocide, the numbers don't suggest this. It's less than 2.5% of the population. Probably less than 2% when combatants figures are eventually accounted for. So whilst Hamas insist that civilians stay put and harbour terrorists then unfortunately more civilians will be killed. But if you are harbouring a terrorist are you truly innocent? Hamas need to release all hostages, lay down its arms and let someone else come and take over the administration of Gaza. Mrs x | |||
"Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine." Source: Jewish Virtual Library If this thread lasts I will hopefully get around to talking about the history of the Hamas Charters. The original was indeed terrible. On the numbers killed in Gaza by the IDF, it's roughly 3% of the population. That might not sound like much to some, but if you scale it up to the UK population it would be like two million Brits being killed. | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder " The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x" Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives  | |||
"From the 1964 PLO Charter: Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine. Source: Jewish Virtual Library If this thread lasts I will hopefully get around to talking about the history of the Hamas Charters. The original was indeed terrible. On the numbers killed in Gaza by the IDF, it's roughly 3% of the population. That might not sound like much to some, but if you scale it up to the UK population it would be like two million Brits being killed." Scale is irrelevant because Britain is not a murderous terrorist regime that is being attacked because we committed atrocities to another country in the name of religion, right now, in our present. Waiting for the bullshit argument of historical perspective, crusades and empire building, none of which are done today, by any of us so just to preempt this, its not worth discussing here but spin away, Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives "It would be if we didnt vote again to remove his party from power. The Palestinians havent had an election since. Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives It would be if we didnt vote again to remove his party from power. The Palestinians havent had an election since.
Mrs x"Pray tell, when did Hamas allow elections since 2006? Your, trying to make out it's the Palestinian people who are at fault to wanting a democratic system. People voted for Putin they can't get rid of him. Orban and Trump are trying to do the same. 20 years later it isn't those people's fault they were duped by populist demands like Brexit?? | |||
"They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x" The election of Hamas took place over 19 years ago, before about half of the current Gazan population were even born never mind able to vote. Very few of the people that the IDF have kilied voted for Hamas. | |||
"From the 1964 PLO Charter: Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine. Source: Jewish Virtual Library If this thread lasts I will hopefully get around to talking about the history of the Hamas Charters. The original was indeed terrible. On the numbers killed in Gaza by the IDF, it's roughly 3% of the population. That might not sound like much to some, but if you scale it up to the UK population it would be like two million Brits being killed.Scale is irrelevant because Britain is not a murderous terrorist regime that is being attacked because we committed atrocities to another country in the name of religion, right now, in our present. Waiting for the bullshit argument of historical perspective, crusades and empire building, none of which are done today, by any of us so just to preempt this, its not worth discussing here but spin away, Mrs x" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? | |||
" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust?" Because it is based on absolute, not scaled, numbers? | |||
"They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x The election of Hamas took place over 19 years ago, before about half of the current Gazan population were even born never mind able to vote. Very few of the people that the IDF have kilied voted for Hamas." But they have done nothing to change those in charge of Gaza. Other terrible regimes have been over thrown. Palestinians know what Hamas are all about and continue to support them, Mrs x | |||
" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? Because it is based on absolute, not scaled, numbers?" Either way, 1,700 Israeli dead and 60,000 in Palestine isn't proportionate | |||
| |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives It would be if we didnt vote again to remove his party from power. The Palestinians havent had an election since.
Mrs x
Pray tell, when did Hamas allow elections since 2006?
Your, trying to make out it's the Palestinian people who are at fault to wanting a democratic system.
People voted for Putin they can't get rid of him.
Orban and Trump are trying to do the same.
20 years later it isn't those people's fault they were duped by populist demands like Brexit??"Communist regimes were overthrown in Europe in the 90s. It's not like it has never happened before. The people support the regime, Mrs x | |||
| |||
"They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x The election of Hamas took place over 19 years ago, before about half of the current Gazan population were even born never mind able to vote. Very few of the people that the IDF have kilied voted for Hamas.But they have done nothing to change those in charge of Gaza. Other terrible regimes have been over thrown. Palestinians know what Hamas are all about and continue to support them, Mrs x" It's not that easy though is it!! Otherwise no totalitarian, dictator would survive. | |||
" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? Because it is based on absolute, not scaled, numbers? Either way, 1,700 Israeli dead and 60,000 in Palestine isn't proportionate " Since when is war proportionate. So if you lose one soldier you can only kill one of theirs, is that how you think wars are waged. Maybe they should think, if I throw a punch at this significantly, taller, heavier, stronger guy, whats the chance of getting my head kicked in? Use this logic and maybe we wouldn't have to discuss things so as proportionate here. Wars are normally won be the bigger, stronger, better armies, its simple, Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives It would be if we didnt vote again to remove his party from power. The Palestinians havent had an election since.
Mrs x
Pray tell, when did Hamas allow elections since 2006?
Your, trying to make out it's the Palestinian people who are at fault to wanting a democratic system.
People voted for Putin they can't get rid of him.
Orban and Trump are trying to do the same.
20 years later it isn't those people's fault they were duped by populist demands like Brexit??Communist regimes were overthrown in Europe in the 90s. It's not like it has never happened before. The people support the regime, Mrs x"It takes a lot to over throw a regime and usually with western help that then leads to years of instability. Libya, Iraq do we even count Afghanistan?? All those dead for what? By your theory their no dissent in North Korea, Russia, China, UAE etc etc | |||
"They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x The election of Hamas took place over 19 years ago, before about half of the current Gazan population were even born never mind able to vote. Very few of the people that the IDF have kilied voted for Hamas.But they have done nothing to change those in charge of Gaza. Other terrible regimes have been over thrown. Palestinians know what Hamas are all about and continue to support them, Mrs x It's not that easy though is it!! Otherwise no totalitarian, dictator would survive." If history tells you anything its that all regimes die, none survive, but you need to at least challenge them if you want to see change. Palestinians in Gaza havent done this, leading me to believe they want to be led by the terrorist group Hamas, Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives It would be if we didnt vote again to remove his party from power. The Palestinians havent had an election since.
Mrs x
Pray tell, when did Hamas allow elections since 2006?
Your, trying to make out it's the Palestinian people who are at fault to wanting a democratic system.
People voted for Putin they can't get rid of him.
Orban and Trump are trying to do the same.
20 years later it isn't those people's fault they were duped by populist demands like Brexit??Communist regimes were overthrown in Europe in the 90s. It's not like it has never happened before. The people support the regime, Mrs x
It takes a lot to over throw a regime and usually with western help that then leads to years of instability.
Libya, Iraq do we even count Afghanistan?? All those dead for what?
By your theory their no dissent in North Korea, Russia, China, UAE etc etc "Not meaningful but it will happen because no empire survives, they all get overthrown, everyone of them, Mrs x | |||
" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? Because it is based on absolute, not scaled, numbers? Either way, 1,700 Israeli dead and 60,000 in Palestine isn't proportionate Since when is war proportionate. So if you lose one soldier you can only kill one of theirs, is that how you think wars are waged. Maybe they should think, if I throw a punch at this significantly, taller, heavier, stronger guy, whats the chance of getting my head kicked in? Use this logic and maybe we wouldn't have to discuss things so as proportionate here. Wars are normally won be the bigger, stronger, better armies, its simple, Mrs x" You clearly have a trumpian, might is right mind set. I have a more human rights mind set. It's not about an eye for eye. It's about doing what's right, they could have attacked Gaza once the same as Hamas did then gone to negotiation. Israel is now in the wrong | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives It would be if we didnt vote again to remove his party from power. The Palestinians havent had an election since.
Mrs x
Pray tell, when did Hamas allow elections since 2006?
Your, trying to make out it's the Palestinian people who are at fault to wanting a democratic system.
People voted for Putin they can't get rid of him.
Orban and Trump are trying to do the same.
20 years later it isn't those people's fault they were duped by populist demands like Brexit??Communist regimes were overthrown in Europe in the 90s. It's not like it has never happened before. The people support the regime, Mrs x
It takes a lot to over throw a regime and usually with western help that then leads to years of instability.
Libya, Iraq do we even count Afghanistan?? All those dead for what?
By your theory their no dissent in North Korea, Russia, China, UAE etc etc Not meaningful but it will happen because no empire survives, they all get overthrown, everyone of them, Mrs x"But because you don't hear of it like Palestine. It doesn't exist and they deserve all they get | |||
" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? Because it is based on absolute, not scaled, numbers? Either way, 1,700 Israeli dead and 60,000 in Palestine isn't proportionate Since when is war proportionate. So if you lose one soldier you can only kill one of theirs, is that how you think wars are waged. Maybe they should think, if I throw a punch at this significantly, taller, heavier, stronger guy, whats the chance of getting my head kicked in? Use this logic and maybe we wouldn't have to discuss things so as proportionate here. Wars are normally won be the bigger, stronger, better armies, its simple, Mrs x You clearly have a trumpian, might is right mind set. I have a more human rights mind set. It's not about an eye for eye. It's about doing what's right, they could have attacked Gaza once the same as Hamas did then gone to negotiation. Israel is now in the wrong " Attacked Gaza 'once'? Like Hamas did? Are you seriously suggesting that that's what Hamas have done? So what about the continously daily missiles attacks from Gaza into Israel? On the very day Hamas gained power and the IDF forcibly removed Israelis from Gaza, Hamas celebrated by firing 2000 missiles into Israel. Is this tge Hamas you are talking about or is there a more cuddly Care Bear version im unaware of. Hamas killed only a few hundred less than Japan killed at Pearl Harbour. That didnt lead the USA only attacking Japan once did it. War is not proportional, if you dont want a hiding, dont pick a fight with a tougher bloke. Even worse dont do that and then bitch about it, when what you know was going to happen happened. And finally dont punch the tougher guy first and then pick up a toddler to hide behind. Mrs x | |||
"Likud Likud used that in 1977, as part of their election manifesto. However the PLO used it in the 60s and early 70s, which you probably knew but didnt want to say as it doesnt suit your narrative. Anyway whilst we are playing this silly game, I'll take you Likud phrase and I'll Top Trump you with Hamas's original constitution. Now there is a hate filled document. Mrs x No I knew, the point was that it's been used by both sides I'm no defender of the terrorist Hamas either! Hence why I called for Mossad to go to Qatar where their leaders actually are. The killing of innocents on either side of the border in Gaza or Israel is wrong!! I can hold more than one thought and I think that's the correct position. Killing innocents is wrong but using them to hide behind is far worse. Hamas knew that there would be retaliation but provided no defense to their civilians. Israel actually leafletting, sometimes even called locations saying they were about to attack. Israel wanted to minimise casualties, otherwise why do this? And how innocent are you, voting for a group who's proclaimed aim is tge annihilation of the Jews and the state of Israel. They voted for these guys knowing that's what they wanted, so what did they think Israel would do? And now they have done it, the ones who voted for this terrorist group are reaping what they have sowm. You cannot attack someone and then complain that they hit you back harder. Lesson is dont attack others. Mrs x Sorry, what, pardon? I voted for who? And I call poppycock, Israel have done nothing, Netanyahu has played Biden and Trump. He killed those kitchen people, he killed journalists and just gets away with literal murder The Palestinians voted for Hamas to rule Gaza. They did this knowing of Hamas's murderous aims. Thats not poppycock, its facts. They wanted to be ruled by a group of terrorists and voted them into power. And yes they are now reaping what they have shown, Mrs x Blimey, it's like saying we voted for Tony Blair in 2007 and should live by that decision for the rest of lives It would be if we didnt vote again to remove his party from power. The Palestinians havent had an election since.
Mrs x
Pray tell, when did Hamas allow elections since 2006?
Your, trying to make out it's the Palestinian people who are at fault to wanting a democratic system.
People voted for Putin they can't get rid of him.
Orban and Trump are trying to do the same.
20 years later it isn't those people's fault they were duped by populist demands like Brexit??Communist regimes were overthrown in Europe in the 90s. It's not like it has never happened before. The people support the regime, Mrs x
It takes a lot to over throw a regime and usually with western help that then leads to years of instability.
Libya, Iraq do we even count Afghanistan?? All those dead for what?
By your theory their no dissent in North Korea, Russia, China, UAE etc etc Not meaningful but it will happen because no empire survives, they all get overthrown, everyone of them, Mrs x
But because you don't hear of it like Palestine. It doesn't exist and they deserve all they get "I didnt say i hadn't heard of any, I said its not meaningful. Stop trying to twist my words, use you own and make a point with them. This is good for the reader as it makes it more interesting for them. Mrs x | |||
" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? Because it is based on absolute, not scaled, numbers? Either way, 1,700 Israeli dead and 60,000 in Palestine isn't proportionate Since when is war proportionate. So if you lose one soldier you can only kill one of theirs, is that how you think wars are waged. Maybe they should think, if I throw a punch at this significantly, taller, heavier, stronger guy, whats the chance of getting my head kicked in? Use this logic and maybe we wouldn't have to discuss things so as proportionate here. Wars are normally won be the bigger, stronger, better armies, its simple, Mrs x You clearly have a trumpian, might is right mind set. I have a more human rights mind set. It's not about an eye for eye. It's about doing what's right, they could have attacked Gaza once the same as Hamas did then gone to negotiation. Israel is now in the wrong Attacked Gaza 'once'? Like Hamas did? Are you seriously suggesting that that's what Hamas have done? So what about the continously daily missiles attacks from Gaza into Israel? On the very day Hamas gained power and the IDF forcibly removed Israelis from Gaza, Hamas celebrated by firing 2000 missiles into Israel. Is this tge Hamas you are talking about or is there a more cuddly Care Bear version im unaware of. Hamas killed only a few hundred less than Japan killed at Pearl Harbour. That didnt lead the USA only attacking Japan once did it. War is not proportional, if you dont want a hiding, dont pick a fight with a tougher bloke. Even worse dont do that and then bitch about it, when what you know was going to happen happened. And finally dont punch the tougher guy first and then pick up a toddler to hide behind. Mrs x" In the greater context of pearl harbour, Hitler was on the march. To think that this mess started on October the 7th is naïve The people of Gaza deserve better than Hamas The people of Israel deserve better than Netanyahu who clearly hasn't protected them | |||
" If scale is irrelevant why do people (rightly) say October the 7th is the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust? Because it is based on absolute, not scaled, numbers? Either way, 1,700 Israeli dead and 60,000 in Palestine isn't proportionate Since when is war proportionate. So if you lose one soldier you can only kill one of theirs, is that how you think wars are waged. Maybe they should think, if I throw a punch at this significantly, taller, heavier, stronger guy, whats the chance of getting my head kicked in? Use this logic and maybe we wouldn't have to discuss things so as proportionate here. Wars are normally won be the bigger, stronger, better armies, its simple, Mrs x You clearly have a trumpian, might is right mind set. I have a more human rights mind set. It's not about an eye for eye. It's about doing what's right, they could have attacked Gaza once the same as Hamas did then gone to negotiation. Israel is now in the wrong Attacked Gaza 'once'? Like Hamas did? Are you seriously suggesting that that's what Hamas have done? So what about the continously daily missiles attacks from Gaza into Israel? On the very day Hamas gained power and the IDF forcibly removed Israelis from Gaza, Hamas celebrated by firing 2000 missiles into Israel. Is this tge Hamas you are talking about or is there a more cuddly Care Bear version im unaware of. Hamas killed only a few hundred less than Japan killed at Pearl Harbour. That didnt lead the USA only attacking Japan once did it. War is not proportional, if you dont want a hiding, dont pick a fight with a tougher bloke. Even worse dont do that and then bitch about it, when what you know was going to happen happened. And finally dont punch the tougher guy first and then pick up a toddler to hide behind. Mrs x In the greater context of pearl harbour, Hitler was on the march. To think that this mess started on October the 7th is naïve The people of Gaza deserve better than Hamas The people of Israel deserve better than Netanyahu who clearly hasn't protected them " As for Pearl Harbour, Hitler really wasn't the major issue. The war in Europe had already been going for 3 years and what Hitler was doing wasn't enough to bring America into the war and give up its isolation policy. Im aware of the issues surrounding the region and the people's of the near Middle East. But saying that its not naive to say that Oct 7th was when this 'mess' started. It is the exact date this war started, unless you know of a different date. I agree that both groups could have better leaders but to compare a democracy with that of a totalitarian theological terrorist state is very naive indeed. You only have to look at the members on this site. Most of us would be tortured, if not killed, living our lives openly under Hamas. At least you'd be free to follow your life in this area free from such punishments in Israel. But if you think they are in anyway similar that's down to you, but you, me and most on here would be persecuted living in Gaza. Mrs x | |||
"As for Pearl Harbour, Hitler really wasn't the major issue. The war in Europe had already been going for 3 years and what Hitler was doing wasn't enough to bring America into the war and give up its isolation policy." That's true. A bit like now under Trump, the US government didn't care a great deal about what was happening in Europe and only declared war on Japan after being forced to do so by Pearl Harbour. Then the US were dragged into the European conflict because Germany and Italy declared war on the US. "Im aware of the issues surrounding the region and the people's of the near Middle East. But saying that its not naive to say that Oct 7th was when this 'mess' started. It is the exact date this war started, unless you know of a different date." Yes, but it's grossly simplifiying things to say the conflict started on Oct 7th. I'm not saying you are claiming it did, but I've heard plenty of people with practically no knowledge of a decades long conflict claiming there was no background to the situation. "I agree that both groups could have better leaders but to compare a democracy with that of a totalitarian theological terrorist state is very naive indeed." Hamas are a barbaric terrorist organisation but calling Israel a democracy is stretching the meaning of the word. Israeli governments don't like defining the limits of their territorial ambition so technically the only fixed borders Israel has are with Egypt (1979 treaty) and Jordan (1994 treaty). So the question of were is Israel is difficult to answer. But I'd class Israel within the Green Line as a democracy. Outside of the green line I'd say it's not a democracy. Let's look at the situation in the West Bank for instance. Here Israel would only be a democracy if it gave up its claim of sovereignty or it extended the franchise to all ethnicities. The Israeli government plays an elaborate game here claiming that it both has sovereignty over the West Bank and that it doesn't have sovereignty over the West Bank. It says it does have sovereignty so that it can claim the land, argue it's not an occupation and that the settlements are legal. But it also wants to pretend it's a modern democracy and not an apartheid state so it simultaneously says it doesn't have sovereignty and so it is an occupation and therefore it has no obligation to extend voting and other rights to all ethnicities. | |||
| |||
"Fifty hostages are still being held in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. What is being achieved holding these bodies and hostages. " You're guess is as good as anyone's. What's being achieved by massacring starving people in a qué for food? | |||
"As for Pearl Harbour, Hitler really wasn't the major issue. The war in Europe had already been going for 3 years and what Hitler was doing wasn't enough to bring America into the war and give up its isolation policy. That's true. A bit like now under Trump, the US government didn't care a great deal about what was happening in Europe and only declared war on Japan after being forced to do so by Pearl Harbour. Then the US were dragged into the European conflict because Germany and Italy declared war on the US. Im aware of the issues surrounding the region and the people's of the near Middle East. But saying that its not naive to say that Oct 7th was when this 'mess' started. It is the exact date this war started, unless you know of a different date. Yes, but it's grossly simplifiying things to say the conflict started on Oct 7th. I'm not saying you are claiming it did, but I've heard plenty of people with practically no knowledge of a decades long conflict claiming there was no background to the situation. I agree that both groups could have better leaders but to compare a democracy with that of a totalitarian theological terrorist state is very naive indeed. Hamas are a barbaric terrorist organisation but calling Israel a democracy is stretching the meaning of the word. Israeli governments don't like defining the limits of their territorial ambition so technically the only fixed borders Israel has are with Egypt (1979 treaty) and Jordan (1994 treaty). So the question of were is Israel is difficult to answer. But I'd class Israel within the Green Line as a democracy. Outside of the green line I'd say it's not a democracy. Let's look at the situation in the West Bank for instance. Here Israel would only be a democracy if it gave up its claim of sovereignty or it extended the franchise to all ethnicities. The Israeli government plays an elaborate game here claiming that it both has sovereignty over the West Bank and that it doesn't have sovereignty over the West Bank. It says it does have sovereignty so that it can claim the land, argue it's not an occupation and that the settlements are legal. But it also wants to pretend it's a modern democracy and not an apartheid state so it simultaneously says it doesn't have sovereignty and so it is an occupation and therefore it has no obligation to extend voting and other rights to all ethnicities." The issue with the West Bank is complicated, even more so since Jordan, who had control of the region until 1967, no longer make any claim to the land. Indeed when King Hussein said Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine, changed his tune once Jordan had to forcibly evict those Palestinians who sought refuge in Jordan after they actually had the temerity to try and over throw him. The same sort of things happened to Eygpt when they took in refugees and again had severe problems with the Palestinians. So if you are aware of the situation why is it that none of the Arab States are offering help to these people, is it because when they have they've had their kindness thrown well and truly back in their face and violently too. You talk of the 2 state solution but this has been refused over 5 times by the Palestinians when offered it. Olmerts proposal was fir 94% of the land from 1967, with the shortfall coming from other parcels of land. You seem to think that Olmerts other problems seemed to stop this yet Olmert was still in power a year later. The Palestinians could have took the deal and argued with subsequent Israeli governments afterwards, from a position of power. They just walked from this, claiming Olmert was a sitting duck president but he 'sat' for over 12vmonths after this. They walked, like they all have because of the 3 NO's, which you have never mentioned. They cannot accept anything Israel has to offer because they would have to recognise Israel, something that is denied in their religion in the form they proclaim it. You also seems to be under the impression that the PLO are some sort of moderate organisation, when you quote their 1964 Charter and article 7. You do know that this Charter was superceded by the 1968 Charter and the Jews could only live in Palestine if they had done so since before the start of Zionism. So 1880's, therefore this only applied to Jews older than 80 and who had lived constantly in the area, so effectively a very small number, which is much smaller now since they all be dead. The 1968 Charter also demands that Istael be wiped from existence. As a state itself because they claim its illegal and also by saying all Jewish claims to the land, historically or spiritually should be denied. Not very benevolent and very similar to the other stances taken by the states of the Arab League. They want a one state solution and that doesn't include Israel. You forgot to mention that when quoting the 1964 Charter? Mrs x | |||
"The issue with the West Bank is complicated, even more so since Jordan, who had control of the region until 1967, no longer make any claim to the land. Indeed when King Hussein said Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine, changed his tune once Jordan had to forcibly evict those Palestinians who sought refuge in Jordan after they actually had the temerity to try and over throw him. The same sort of things happened to Eygpt when they took in refugees and again had severe problems with the Palestinians. So if you are aware of the situation why is it that none of the Arab States are offering help to these people, is it because when they have they've had their kindness thrown well and truly back in their face and violently too." I think we've already had a conversation about what happened after the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and its subsequent military adventures across the river. "You talk of the 2 state solution but this has been refused over 5 times by the Palestinians when offered it. Olmerts proposal was fir 94% of the land from 1967, with the shortfall coming from other parcels of land. You seem to think that Olmerts other problems seemed to stop this yet Olmert was still in power a year later. The Palestinians could have took the deal and argued with subsequent Israeli governments afterwards, from a position of power. They just walked from this, claiming Olmert was a sitting duck president but he 'sat' for over 12vmonths after this." As I've said before the maps looked fairly reasonable. The conditions that the Palestinians inside the so-called state were supposed to settle for weren't. They were in effect just a continuation of the status quo with Israel being in control of everything and the Palestinians having no prospect of real sovereignty unless Israel decided they might deserve it at some indeterminate point in the future. But as I said this period in time was the closest we have been to real peace and justice. "They walked, like they all have because of the 3 NO's, which you have never mentioned." By the 3 No's you are going back in time to the Khartoum Resolution in September 1967. The Olmert talks were in 2008. In Sept 1967 Israel started a "pre-emptive war" where it occupied Gaza, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. The Khartoum Resolution was an immediate reaction to this. Israel offered to exchange Sinai and the Golan in exchange for peace and the Arabs gave them the middle finger. "They cannot accept anything Israel has to offer because they would have to recognise Israel, something that is denied in their religion in the form they proclaim it." Then how come the PLO formally recognized Israel in 1993? "You also seems to be under the impression that the PLO are some sort of moderate organisation, when you quote their 1964 Charter and article 7. You do know that this Charter was superceded by the 1968 Charter and the Jews could only live in Palestine if they had done so since before the start of Zionism. So 1880's, therefore this only applied to Jews older than 80 and who had lived constantly in the area, so effectively a very small number, which is much smaller now since they all be dead." My feelings about the PLO are mixed. Like the Khartoum Resolution, the 1968 PLO charter was a reaction to occupation of more land by Israeli forces. It actually says this in the text... " As a result of the changes created in the aftermath of the Six Day War, both in the West Bank and Gaza, and changes in the Palestine Liberation Organization itself, the Palestinian National Council met in Cairo on July 10-17, 1968 and amended the Covenant. Text:" You seem to think that the PLO would not react but they did. The new covenant said "Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians." I interpreted this to mean 1947 not some indeterminate 1880's date you have invented. The 1947 date makes sense as they now viewed the unilateral declaration of independece by Israel in a totally different light to how they viewed it in 1964. "The 1968 Charter also demands that Istael be wiped from existence. As a state itself because they claim its illegal and also by saying all Jewish claims to the land, historically or spiritually should be denied." I suggest people actually read it rather than rely on your paraphrasing. "Not very benevolent and very similar to the other stances taken by the states of the Arab League. They want a one state solution and that doesn't include Israel. You forgot to mention that when quoting the 1964 Charter?" The reason I posted the original Article 7 was because you were talking about the PLO in the 1960's implying that they wouldn't allow any Jews to live between the "River and the Sea". According to Robin Kelly's "From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top: Solidarity as Worldmaking"... "As one Fatah leader explained in early 1969, "If we are fighting a Jewish state of a racial kind, which had driven the Arabs out of their lands, it is not so as to replace it with an Arab state which would in turn drive out the Jews.. We are ready to look at anything with all our negotiating partners once our right to live in our homeland is recognized." Thus by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel."" | |||
| |||
| |||
"Death death to the IDF is more like saying death death to the British army Doesn't make you anti British or anti Jewish Just against genocide " And sound like a moron with empty words and no intent. | |||
"Death death to the IDF is more like saying death death to the British army Doesn't make you anti British or anti Jewish Just against genocide And sound like a moron with empty words and no intent." Intent is subjective | |||
"Death death to the IDF is more like saying death death to the British army Doesn't make you anti British or anti Jewish Just against genocide And sound like a moron with empty words and no intent." Ah! Yes the outsider looking in from Dudley | |||
| |||
| |||
"Death death to the IDF is more like saying death death to the British army Doesn't make you anti British or anti Jewish Just against genocide And sound like a moron with empty words and no intent. Ah! Yes the outsider looking in from Dudley " No sir. I'm from the black country.  | |||
"Guys, being so anti-Semitic the Jewish people have suffered more than anyone else in the entire history of the world they deserve their own piece of someone else’s land and all our support in starving babies because they are gods chosen people and are better than other human beings. This is what they say God wants so who are we to argue? " Instead of the Germans being the usual prime apologists for Israel, maybe they should instead offer the Zionists a large chunk of Germany as their apology for the holocaust? I’m sure they would be delighted to be given that opportunity? I mean come on, it’s only been a few decades, it’s hardly 2000 years since they were expelled from the country is it? | |||
| |||
"Guys, stop being so anti-Semitic the Jewish people have suffered more than anyone else in the entire history of the world they deserve their own piece of someone else’s land and all our support in starving babies because they are gods chosen people and are better than other human beings. This is what they say God wants so who are we to argue? Germany could, and should!!! " I do hope moderators can see the sentiment you have used here by doubling down on your first post and adding that last sentence. | |||
"The issue with the West Bank is complicated, even more so since Jordan, who had control of the region until 1967, no longer make any claim to the land. Indeed when King Hussein said Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine, changed his tune once Jordan had to forcibly evict those Palestinians who sought refuge in Jordan after they actually had the temerity to try and over throw him. The same sort of things happened to Eygpt when they took in refugees and again had severe problems with the Palestinians. So if you are aware of the situation why is it that none of the Arab States are offering help to these people, is it because when they have they've had their kindness thrown well and truly back in their face and violently too. I think we've already had a conversation about what happened after the 1967 Israeli occupation of the West Bank and its subsequent military adventures across the river. You talk of the 2 state solution but this has been refused over 5 times by the Palestinians when offered it. Olmerts proposal was fir 94% of the land from 1967, with the shortfall coming from other parcels of land. You seem to think that Olmerts other problems seemed to stop this yet Olmert was still in power a year later. The Palestinians could have took the deal and argued with subsequent Israeli governments afterwards, from a position of power. They just walked from this, claiming Olmert was a sitting duck president but he 'sat' for over 12vmonths after this. As I've said before the maps looked fairly reasonable. The conditions that the Palestinians inside the so-called state were supposed to settle for weren't. They were in effect just a continuation of the status quo with Israel being in control of everything and the Palestinians having no prospect of real sovereignty unless Israel decided they might deserve it at some indeterminate point in the future. But as I said this period in time was the closest we have been to real peace and justice. They walked, like they all have because of the 3 NO's, which you have never mentioned. By the 3 No's you are going back in time to the Khartoum Resolution in September 1967. The Olmert talks were in 2008. In Sept 1967 Israel started a "pre-emptive war" where it occupied Gaza, Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. The Khartoum Resolution was an immediate reaction to this. Israel offered to exchange Sinai and the Golan in exchange for peace and the Arabs gave them the middle finger. They cannot accept anything Israel has to offer because they would have to recognise Israel, something that is denied in their religion in the form they proclaim it. Then how come the PLO formally recognized Israel in 1993? You also seems to be under the impression that the PLO are some sort of moderate organisation, when you quote their 1964 Charter and article 7. You do know that this Charter was superceded by the 1968 Charter and the Jews could only live in Palestine if they had done so since before the start of Zionism. So 1880's, therefore this only applied to Jews older than 80 and who had lived constantly in the area, so effectively a very small number, which is much smaller now since they all be dead. My feelings about the PLO are mixed. Like the Khartoum Resolution, the 1968 PLO charter was a reaction to occupation of more land by Israeli forces. It actually says this in the text... As a result of the changes created in the aftermath of the Six Day War, both in the West Bank and Gaza, and changes in the Palestine Liberation Organization itself, the Palestinian National Council met in Cairo on July 10-17, 1968 and amended the Covenant. Text: You seem to think that the PLO would not react but they did. The new covenant said "Jews who were living permanently in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians." I interpreted this to mean 1947 not some indeterminate 1880's date you have invented. The 1947 date makes sense as they now viewed the unilateral declaration of independece by Israel in a totally different light to how they viewed it in 1964. The 1968 Charter also demands that Istael be wiped from existence. As a state itself because they claim its illegal and also by saying all Jewish claims to the land, historically or spiritually should be denied. I suggest people actually read it rather than rely on your paraphrasing. Not very benevolent and very similar to the other stances taken by the states of the Arab League. They want a one state solution and that doesn't include Israel. You forgot to mention that when quoting the 1964 Charter? The reason I posted the original Article 7 was because you were talking about the PLO in the 1960's implying that they wouldn't allow any Jews to live between the "River and the Sea". According to Robin Kelly's "From the River to the Sea to Every Mountain Top: Solidarity as Worldmaking"... As one Fatah leader explained in early 1969, "If we are fighting a Jewish state of a racial kind, which had driven the Arabs out of their lands, it is not so as to replace it with an Arab state which would in turn drive out the Jews.. We are ready to look at anything with all our negotiating partners once our right to live in our homeland is recognized." Thus by 1969, "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel." " OK I'll respond to each of your points in turn. The offer from Olmert was not refused due to issues relating to sovereignty or Olmerts precarious position as Prime Minister but was due to Abbass's and only Abbass. If you knew what those who played a part in these negotiations you know this. Saeb Erekat the Chief Palestinian negotiator, made clear that a refusal to budge on maximalist Palestinian positions was the TRUE reason why these proposals were rejected, rather than not being able to review a map: “There will be no peace whatsoever unless East Jerusalem – with every single stone in it – becomes the capital of Palestine.” In a December 2018 interview on official PA television, Erekat again confirmed the parameters of Olmert’s offer, indicating that the total land area for a Palestinian state was actually greater than the total area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip: I heard Olmert say that he offered [Abbas] 100 percent of the West Bank territory. This is true. I’ll testify to this. He [Olmert] presented a map [to Abbas], and said: ‘I want [Israel] to take 6.5 percent of the West Bank, and I’ll give [the PA] 6.5 percent of the 1948 territory in return.’ [Olmert] said to Abbas: ‘The area of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the eve of June 4, 1967, was 6,235 sq. km. [I, Erekat, said to Abbas]: ‘There are 50 sq. km. of no man’s land in Jerusalem and Latrun. We’ll split them between us, so the territory will be 6,260 sq. km.’ [I said to Abbas:] Olmert wants to give you 20 sq. km. more, so that you could say [to Palestinians]: ‘I got more than the 1967 territories.’ Regarding Jerusalem, [Olmert said:] ‘What’s Arab is Arab, and what’s Jewish is Jewish, and we’ll keep it an open city.’” The real reason for the rejection was not Olmert’s weak standing; it was Abbas’ unwillingness to budge from maximalist Palestinian demands, even if it meant losing out on the chance for Palestinian statehood. The notion of Israel seeking to permanently “dominate” Palestinians or “perpetually occupy” is completely shattered by the Olmert offer and the Barak offer several years earlier. Anti-Israel discourse deliberately omits or falsifies these events to promote their fabricated narrative of an intransigent Israel unwilling to make peace and end its control of the West Bank. You are correct in your statement that Khartoum and the 3 NOs and the 1968 Charter were a response to the Israeli victory following the Six Day war. Im acknowledging this right from the outset because its probably the obly thing thats correct in your response. Your interpretation upon the dates, of when the Charter of 1968, talks about Jews who lived in Palestine prior to the beginning of the 'invasion of Zionism' relates to 1947. If this was the date, and if it was, why wasnt Israel War of Independence mention? It wasnt because it doesnt mean that. It means the date when the Zionist movement 'invaded'. This is generally considered to have started as a movement in the 1880s something I'd expect anyone to know if they had the slightest interest in the issues here. Next you'll be saying I'm making up mames by asking you about Theodor Herzl. Im not going to elaborate on this person anymore, because you must agree he is widely accepted as being the founder of the Zionist movement which saw Jews return to their homeland under Zionism. So your puerile comments about making up indeterminate dates is just that, childish. If you want to be a better man nows your chance to hold your hands up to this. So to conclude on this point, one of us gives a date they believe is relevant, whilst the other gives a date based upon facts and whats actually written in the 1968 Charter. I'll let everyone decide whos comments carry the most weight, given that facts beat feelings, hope I've not upset your feelings here as you like to use them a lot, ...a lot, a lot, a lot. You then mention that Israel started a war preemptively without mentioning why. Bit strange but for clarity I'l explain just in case you are unaware. In the months prior to the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967, tensions again became dangerously heightened: Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that another Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a definite casus belli. In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military into defensive lines along the border with Israel. So Israel actually reacted to military maneuvers from Egypt, after warning Egypt it would if they took this course of action. Next your statement that Israel offered the Sinai back fir peace and were shown the middle finger from the Egyptians.This is one of the weirder things you have said and not sure what you are saying really because the Sinai was not handed back until 1982, long time to hold your finger up. As for your point that the PLO recognised Israel from 1993, they didnt initially. Yasser Arafat did, he did this in private with no consultation from the Arab League. The secrecy was greeted with hostility and incredulity but some in the Arab League and was seen as a ploy to restore Arafats reputation rather than a genuine attempt at any meaningful breakthrough. It's one of the major reason Arafat just walked away from the process, abandoning it all together. As for the actual recognition of Israel, that's disputed by those within the PLO itself. It would have required the removal of several of the offending articles contained within the 1968 Charter. Obviously Arafat said this was done but the PLO Foreign Secetary, Farouk Kaddoumi, stated in 2004 that it was never amended. I maybe wrong but I think that the revisions that were supposed to admit the legitimacy of Israel are not shown in any version of the Charter published by the Palestinian National Authority or the PLO. Palestinian Authority publications. If you know different then could you please post them so I can read up on them thanks. Anyway next point. When I said that the 1968 Charter calls for the removal of the state of Israel due to it being illegal. And they want to remove all rights to the land from Jews both historically and spiritually giving them no rights to settle the land, you said others should read the Charter rather than rely on my paraphrasing. This is a linguistic tool designed to say I'm either wrong in what im saying or more nefarious that im lying. Im not even going to challenge this rubbish other than to post the articles from the Charter concerned with this. 'Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.' Israel is illegal apparently... 'Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of their own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.' Jews should not have any claim to the land, either historically or spiritually. So dont take my word for it, read it Articles 19 and 20. You could do yourself a favour and take your own advice here. So onwards, finally when you quote the phrase "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel" you are falling for the notion as per Article 20 that Jews are not a people, just a religion and that they are people of the States in which they reside. Which is not the case and Jews are a race of people. So there we go, I know its long but hopefully its been informative. And if you can show me the document were the 1968 Charter has been amended to recognise Israel by the PLO, I'll swap you details of the documents from PLO members which says this was never the case. Mrs x | |||
"Guys, being so anti-Semitic the Jewish people have suffered more than anyone else in the entire history of the world they deserve their own piece of someone else’s land and all our support in starving babies because they are gods chosen people and are better than other human beings. This is what they say God wants so who are we to argue? Instead of the Germans being the usual prime apologists for Israel, maybe they should instead offer the Zionists a large chunk of Germany as their apology for the holocaust? I’m sure they would be delighted to be given that opportunity? I mean come on, it’s only been a few decades, it’s hardly 2000 years since they were expelled from the country is it?" Yeah North Eastern Germany (Prussia) lol | |||
"OK I'll respond to each of your points in turn." Thanks for your response. I enjoy rigorous debate. The scope of this particular conversation seems to be getting larger on each iteration and will soon become unmanageable but let's keep going for now... By the way I'm just expressing my personal opinions here. I'm not representing anyone else's position nor am I endorsing anyone else's position. "The offer from Olmert was not refused due to issues relating to sovereignty or Olmerts precarious position as Prime Minister but was due to Abbass's and only Abbass. If you knew what those who played a part in these negotiations you know this. Saeb Erekat the Chief Palestinian negotiator, made clear that a refusal to budge on maximalist Palestinian positions was the TRUE reason why these proposals were rejected, rather than not being able to review a map: “There will be no peace whatsoever unless East Jerusalem – with every single stone in it – becomes the capital of Palestine.”" I believe East Jerusalem has always been a red line for the Palestinians and my understanding is that it is considered occupied territory under international law. Because Jerusalem is so important to Jews, Christians and Muslims I think it needs to be handled as a special case separate from overall peace negotiations as it has acted as a stumbling block. I'm an atheist so can't get my head around the deep feelings of theists about this site but there ought to be a way to have West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and East Jerusalem as the Capital of Palestine but with the most important historic parts under some special international status. "In a December 2018 interview on official PA television, Erekat again confirmed the parameters of Olmert’s offer, indicating that the total land area for a Palestinian state was actually greater than the total area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip: I heard Olmert say that he offered [Abbas] 100 percent of the West Bank territory. This is true. I’ll testify to this. He [Olmert] presented a map [to Abbas], and said: ‘I want [Israel] to take 6.5 percent of the West Bank, and I’ll give [the PA] 6.5 percent of the 1948 territory in return.’ [Olmert] said to Abbas: ‘The area of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the eve of June 4, 1967, was 6,235 sq. km. [I, Erekat, said to Abbas]: ‘There are 50 sq. km. of no man’s land in Jerusalem and Latrun. We’ll split them between us, so the territory will be 6,260 sq. km.’ [I said to Abbas:] Olmert wants to give you 20 sq. km. more, so that you could say [to Palestinians]: ‘I got more than the 1967 territories.’ Regarding Jerusalem, [Olmert said:] ‘What’s Arab is Arab, and what’s Jewish is Jewish, and we’ll keep it an open city.’” The real reason for the rejection was not Olmert’s weak standing; it was Abbas’ unwillingness to budge from maximalist Palestinian demands, even if it meant losing out on the chance for Palestinian statehood. The notion of Israel seeking to permanently “dominate” Palestinians or “perpetually occupy” is completely shattered by the Olmert offer and the Barak offer several years earlier." I don't think any of this changes my point that the maps weren't all that mattered. Also the Olmert proposal is surrounded in mystery. According to the Times of Israel... “Abbas never said no,” Olmert emphasized. “Not only did he not say no — the whole rumor about him rejecting it flatly is untrue,” he continued. “At every possible occasion, from then on until today, President Abbas emphasizes and he relays to me as well… that he never ever said no to this plan.” “What he actually said to me was this plan sounds very impressive, it sounds very serious… He was excited and very open-minded to the option of making this agreement. But he said, you know, I’m not an expert on maps. How can I sign something before I show it to the experts on our side to examine it?” So why wouldn't Olmert allow the map to be published? Maybe the territorial offer was so generous that if it leaked the whole thing would have collapsed? I genuinely don't know what happened. What I do know is it was a missed opportunity to move forward. If Netanyahu hadn't replaced Olmert in March 2009 then the deal might have been kept on the table for sufficient time for everyone to come to terms with it and agree. "Anti-Israel discourse deliberately omits or falsifies these events to promote their fabricated narrative of an intransigent Israel unwilling to make peace and end its control of the West Bank." OK, let's say it really was all Abbas's fault. If the Israeli government isn't intransigent and unwilling to make peace or end its control of the West Bank then why don't they put the same deal back on the table? "You are correct in your statement that Khartoum and the 3 NOs and the 1968 Charter were a response to the Israeli victory following the Six Day war. Im acknowledging this right from the outset because its probably the obly thing thats correct in your response. Your interpretation upon the dates, of when the Charter of 1968, talks about Jews who lived in Palestine prior to the beginning of the 'invasion of Zionism' relates to 1947. If this was the date, and if it was, why wasnt Israel War of Independence mention? It wasnt because it doesnt mean that. It means the date when the Zionist movement 'invaded'. This is generally considered to have started as a movement in the 1880s something I'd expect anyone to know if they had the slightest interest in the issues here. Next you'll be saying I'm making up mames by asking you about Theodor Herzl. Im not going to elaborate on this person anymore, because you must agree he is widely accepted as being the founder of the Zionist movement which saw Jews return to their homeland under Zionism." There's no mention of the 1880's or 1947, the text was presumably kept deliberately vague so that various factions could be kept happy. We are both just interpreting the text from our own perspectives. What is clear though is that prior to the 1967 war the PLO said "Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine." "So your puerile comments about making up indeterminate dates is just that, childish. If you want to be a better man nows your chance to hold your hands up to this. So to conclude on this point, one of us gives a date they believe is relevant, whilst the other gives a date based upon facts and whats actually written in the 1968 Charter. I'll let everyone decide whos comments carry the most weight, given that facts beat feelings, hope I've not upset your feelings here as you like to use them a lot, ...a lot, a lot, a lot." LOL. "You then mention that Israel started a war preemptively without mentioning why. Bit strange but for clarity I'l explain just in case you are unaware." Nothing strange. I'm debating on a swinger's website not writing a book. It is worth noting though how fond the Israeli government is of pre-emptive warfare. We've just had one war in Iran and, even though it's not getting much media coverage, Israeli forces are continuing their slow invasion of Syria. On June 19th they advanced another 1.5 km . "In the months prior to the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967, tensions again became dangerously heightened: Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that another Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a definite casus belli. In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military into defensive lines along the border with Israel. So Israel actually reacted to military maneuvers from Egypt, after warning Egypt it would if they took this course of action." I could go into this in detail but this conversation is already ballooning out of control. "Next your statement that Israel offered the Sinai back fir peace and were shown the middle finger from the Egyptians.This is one of the weirder things you have said and not sure what you are saying really because the Sinai was not handed back until 1982, long time to hold your finger up." On 19th June 1967 Israel offered to give back the Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace (source: Benny Morris) and the leaders of the Arab League said no. "As for your point that the PLO recognised Israel from 1993, they didnt initially. Yasser Arafat did, he did this in private with no consultation from the Arab League. The secrecy was greeted with hostility and incredulity but some in the Arab League and was seen as a ploy to restore Arafats reputation rather than a genuine attempt at any meaningful breakthrough. It's one of the major reason Arafat just walked away from the process, abandoning it all together." The agreement wasn't between Israel and the Arab League it was between Israel and the PLO. It was probably the biggest breakthrough in the history of the I/P conflict and landed Arafat, Rabin and Peres a Nobel peace prize. "As for the actual recognition of Israel, that's disputed by those within the PLO itself. It would have required the removal of several of the offending articles contained within the 1968 Charter. Obviously Arafat said this was done but the PLO Foreign Secetary, Farouk Kaddoumi, stated in 2004 that it was never amended. I maybe wrong but I think that the revisions that were supposed to admit the legitimacy of Israel are not shown in any version of the Charter published by the Palestinian National Authority or the PLO. Palestinian Authority publications. If you know different then could you please post them so I can read up on them thanks." I think you are probably correct that a new version of the charter was never published but the argument about which Jews were Palestinian and which Jews weren't Palestinian had become almost academic as the PLO had shifted position from a one-state to a two-state solution and Jews had their own country. A country recognized by the PLO. "Anyway next point. When I said that the 1968 Charter calls for the removal of the state of Israel due to it being illegal. And they want to remove all rights to the land from Jews both historically and spiritually giving them no rights to settle the land, you said others should read the Charter rather than rely on my paraphrasing. This is a linguistic tool designed to say I'm either wrong in what im saying or more nefarious that im lying." Paraphrasing can often be useful but given the argument here is about the exact meaning of historical text it's usually best to look at the actual text. "Im not even going to challenge this rubbish other than to post the articles from the Charter concerned with this. 'Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.' Israel is illegal apparently..." This is talking about UNGA 181 also known as the Partition Plan. Israeli governments say this gave them a legal right to establish a state but it was merely a General Assembly resolution. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. Heck, the Israeli government routinely ignores Security Council resolutions which are binding! Israel came into being by a unilateral declaration of independence that trampled over the rights of the Palestinians. But the USA and the Soviet Union recognized it straight away and the rest is history. "'Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of their own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.' Jews should not have any claim to the land, either historically or spiritually." See my comments above and I'll talk more about race later. Are British Jews not British? Their nationality is considered to be British not Jewish nor Israeli (although obviously some British Jews might have dual-nationality). Having a particular religious, ethnic, racial or cultural identity isn't the same as nationailty in the normal use of the word nationality. "So dont take my word for it, read it Articles 19 and 20. You could do yourself a favour and take your own advice here." Obviously, I had read the text of the articles before advising people to do so. "So onwards, finally when you quote the phrase "Free Palestine from the river to the sea" came to mean one democratic secular state that would supersede the ethno-religious state of Israel" you are falling for the notion as per Article 20 that Jews are not a people, just a religion and that they are people of the States in which they reside. Which is not the case and Jews are a race of people." A blanket statement like Jews are a race of people is fraught with problems and nobody has said that Jews are not a people. Race is a social construct. We all use the word in various context but it has little scientific validity. Who is a Jew is an area that needs addressing with some sensitivity. Is antisemitism a form of racism? Yes. But some Jews find the notion that they are a race pretty offensive. Some Jews don't consider it possible to convert to Judaism. They consider some other Jews to not be Jews. Let's look at a married white couple in New York with kids. One parent is Jewish, the other Christian. Are the children of mixed race? Of course they aren't. Are they Jewish, half-Jewish, not Jewish? It depends. In most Jewish traditions the kids would be Jewish only if the mother were Jewish. Jewish identity has multiple facets - a charmingly complex venn diagram of religion, ethnicity, tribe, community and culture. "So there we go, I know its long but hopefully its been informative. And if you can show me -the document were the 1968 Charter has been amended to recognise Israel by the PLO, I'll swap you details of the documents from PLO members which says this was never the case. Mrs x" I addressed this already. What I'm interested in is persuading people that a future of peace and security is possible if all sides recognise the humanity in the other. I believe the only realistic path forward is toward a two-state solution where Palestinians can enjoy the same rights as Israelis. | |||
| |||
