Also, to apply your fantastic moral compass to all those Jews killed in ww2: "sorry, they lost!" — Benkei

It's truly remarkable how people can really just not understand double standards and hypocrisy.

Also, Nazi's at least tried to hide what they were doing in concentration camps, which is a more morally laudable position than doing it streamed to the whole world, including raping prisoners in the ass.

We have the answer: obliterate the hospital, and everyone in it. Since they’re non-human anyway, it doesn’t matter much. — Mikie

Israel actually sent in special commando troops to al-shifa hospital. I don't believe any civilians were killed during the operation miraculously.

I have nothing against Jews in Israel. — Benkei

I'm not accusing you of that. I'm saying that you (and many others) seem to have something against the notion of a Jewish state. You (and others) simply do not like the idea of a state having a Jewish character so your impression of Israel is reflexively negative before any news gets reported.

Also, to apply your fantastic moral compass to all those Jews killed in ww2: "sorry, they lost!" — Benkei

Land gained during a defensive war is not the same as a policy of systematic murder. Israel is currently conducting polio vaccinations & assisting food distribution in Gaza; not conducting mass shootings or bringing in gas vans.

Let me know when all Palestinians are required to register with Israeli authorities. — BitconnectCarlos

:snicker:
FYI:

The Population Registry Office is responsible for updating and archiving the Palestinian population registry held by Israel, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority.

In accordance with diplomatic agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, full responsibility for administering the population registry and providing services to Palestinian residents of the area has been passed to the Palestinian Authority.

The Population Registry Office works to update population registry files located on the Israeli side to match the files that are held by the Palestinian Authority.

Judea and Samaria
Areas of Responsibility and Services

Updating the Palestinian population registry file on the Israeli side
Handling of visas for foreigners who request to stay in the area
Tracking and oversight of address changes, marital status changes, births, deaths, and more
Provision of information to national entities as well as to entities authorized in accordance with the needs and instructions of the law
Handling of Palestinian Authority requests for visitors' permits for foreigners, with the approval of COGAT
Handling of Palestinian Authority requests connected with the Palestinian population registry for Palestinian residents and foreigners, with the approval of COGAT

Gaza Strip
Areas of Responsibility and Services

Updating of the population registry in the Israeli authority systems – passports, certificates, identification cards, etc.
Verification of familial relations for Israelis crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip
Handling of exceptional crossing requests for foreigners and miscellaneous persons staying in the Gaza Strip without documentation
Handling of exceptional requests of Palestinians requiring recognition of their status in Israel, in the framework of naturalization, in cooperation with the Ministry of Interior

See gov.il site on population registrar

Israel actually sent in special commando troops to al-shifa hospital. I don't believe any civilians were killed during the operation miraculously. — BitconnectCarlos

So it can be done… :chin:

I thought causalities were inevitable because war is hell, WWII, good intentions and so on.

Meh... I was hesitant about writing that last line.

Anyway, if the Palestinian territories were actually like a Nazi ghetto then both the PA and Hamas would be unquestionably subordinate to the Israeli government and Israel would be able to replace them as they like.

It was lucky to be done in that one case. Try it repeatedly for the past year.

We'll never know how many innocent civilians died. All the Hamas killed in the al-shifa operation are added to the death count.

, what is it you have in mind for Israel?

^{(I get the impression you have something broader in mind, perhaps beyond Israel.)}

Anyway, if the Palestinian territories were actually like a Nazi ghetto then both the PA and Hamas would be unquestionably subordinate to the Israeli government and Israel would be able to replace them as they like. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, you did have the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, so things have gone quite similarly in that case.

But's lets say the obvious, the death toll isn't reaching hundred thousand or over, which was in the case of the larger Warsaw Uprising or in the battle of Manila, were the actions was literally to destroy the city and it's inhabitants.

That said, which above hardly could be said to be "positive", is the fact that Bibi has no idea how (or will) how to really resolve this. And the present suits him fine. A perpetual state of conflict is good for him.

A genuine forever war would be the apt term here. (Which isn't for the war in Ukraine)

So which one is a better neighbor? An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side of the border or a failed state that doesn't have the ability to control it's borders? — ssu

It would be better “An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side”. But what is this assessment useful for in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Your assessment looks to me as useful as the following one: “ which one is a better neighbour? An Israeli state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard its side of the border or an apartheid-genocidal-colonialist state?”
In the current circumstances Palestine is closer to be fully occupied and controlled by an Israeli state, than to remain a failed state neighbour.

Yet the fact is that the current Israeli administration does not want a peace agreement. Likud and it's fellow parties have been quite consistent in this. They have in writing said this and one should believe their word on this. This is absolutely crucial to understand, and this comes out very clearly from Likud's party's original charter from 1977:

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) — ssu

Notice however that even Netanyahu is able talk about the conditions for a two state solution (at least, starting with demilitarisation and recognition of Israel’s right to exist) [1]. His friend Trump too (among other American presidents) declared his support for a two state solution [2]. Besides given the fact that Netanyahu’s popularity has now sharply declined, one may believe that Israeli politics has potential to explore other plans than Netanyahu and Likud’s . Indeed other important Israeli parties and political leaders were opposing Likud’s strong stance toward Palestinian political aspirations and are open to the idea of a two state solution (in particular Yair Lapid, the leader of Yesh Arid party and former Prime Minister of Israel). However over time their views shifted to more nuanced, if not alternative solutions (e.g. Avigdor Lieberman expressed support for a "three-state solution"). What’s worse is that the current war is supported by ~2/3 of the Israelis and the support of a two state solution has sharply declined since 2013 and after October the 7th it reached ~10% [2].

So the problem looks to me deeper than Netanyahu and Likud.


[1]
I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause) And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hezbollah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel - we must provide for our security needs.

https://www.haaretz.com/2009-06-14/ty-article/full-text-of-netanyahus-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan/0000017f-f587-d5bd-a17f-f7bffbae0000 (2009)



"I like two-state solution. Yeah. That's what I think… that's what I think works best. I don't even have to speak to anybody, that's my feeling... I think two-state solution works best,"
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-09-26/ty-article/netanyahu-trump-expected-to-discuss-russia-crisis-at-un-general-assembly/0000017f-e8a1-da9b-a1ff-ecef90d20000 (2018)

[2]
https://theconversation.com/most-israelis-dislike-netanyahu-but-support-the-war-in-gaza-an-israeli-scholar-explains-whats-driving-public-opinion-230046
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/30/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war-may-2024/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/26/israelis-have-grown-more-skeptical-of-a-two-state-solution/
https://jcpa.org/poll-reveals-dramatic-shift-in-israeli-public-opinion-after-october-7-attacks/

Hamas is a preferable Palestinian entity for Bibi (as shown from the fact that prior to October 7th the administration supported financially Hamas). You don't have to negotiate with terrorists. And you can continue building settlements in the West Bank.

That's why I don't believe in peace emerging in this war. This conflict can easily continue our lifetime and the lifetime of the next generation. — ssu

Hamas is more instrumental to Netanyahu than Fatah (and such a view would probably be reciprocated by Hamas) to justify his refusal to negotiate a two state solution. But as I said before, it’s not that Netanyahu is totally unwilling to consider other more negotiable options as an alternative to simply annexing all Palestinian territories and expelling Palestinian people. On the other side, a Palestinian state is a problem even for more moderate political views because the belligerent component of the Palestinian population can’t be easily contained by Palestinians, and when Palestinians were more free to decide for their future they were pursuing more maximalist goals without enough means to achieve them (see the rejection of the UN resolution, and democratic elections of Hamas). The same goes with Israel, which is a problem even for more moderate political views among Palestinians, because the belligerent component of the Israeli population can’t be easily contained by the moderate Israelis and Israel has more means to achieve maximalist goals than Palestinians.
This creates a reinforcing deadlock of reciprocal mistrust which I think, differently from you, is wider and deeper than Hamas and Likud. And it is rooted into historical Israelis’ and Palestinians’ threat perception also amongst more moderate views, with volatile moments of optimism. As discussed with you in previous posts, the situation of two people with national and territorial aspirations over the same piece of land looks to me inherently explosive. They would need at the same time to give up on territorial aspirations and on reparation for past abuses to get peaceful coexistence, which is understandably hard to achieve. Even more so if much less effort is required to destroy than to build trust.

see here

See also

Netanyahu: Money to Hamas part of strategy to keep Palestinians divided

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces

‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas

A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance — ssu

OK thanks. Here some thoughts:

First, we are not talking about Israeli direct financing of Hamas but Qatari money for humanitarian aid, as agreed with the US and Qatar.
Second, the Qatari donations are a non-negligible but partial portion of Hamas income coming from taxes, legitimate business, covert smuggling, and international charity/donors (https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/hamas-money, https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/11/02/sanctions-on-hamas-secret-investment-portfolio-unlikely-to-have-major-impact-on-groups-fun), so I’m not sure to what extent Qatari money that Israel has allowed to enter in Gaza was actually vital for or actually converted into Hamas’s armed resistance.
Third, if it is true that cash for “humanitarian aids” are embezzled by Hamas to pursue terrorist activities and everybody knows that, then Israel is to be blamed for allowing cash to flow into Gaza AS MUCH AS their donors (including the UNRWA financed by EU and US, Palestinian Authority, other international organisations like “World Vision”, Islamic charities, pro-Palestinian organisations etc.), because with no cash there would be no allowing and no embezzlement.
Third, from Netanyahu’s perspective, if Israel didn’t allow Qatar cash flow, Israel could have been blamed for obstructing humanitarian aids (especially under the pressure of a humanitarian crisis in Gaza back in 2014) after the blockade of 2007 by the international community including UN and humanitarian organisations (like Human Rights Watch). On the other side, one can’t exclude that such money could flow into Gaza anyways through alternative channels (e.g. Hamas tunnels and Hawala networks), bypassing Israel/international monitoring. Besides, if Qatari money could replace Palestinian Authority’s money, then this would therefore weaken Palestinian Authority’s influence over Gaza. So, to me, the problem doesn’t seem to be Netanyahu’s green light to a Qatari cash flow into Gaza per se, but in the lack of adequate supervision of its usage and so in failing “to ensure the funds don’t go to terrorism”, as declared.
Fourth, one may wonder if this lack of supervision was intentional, or the result of overconfidence or negligence, and then suspect the worst from Netanyahu (whatever that might be). But that's the part I find less interesting. So all I feel more confident to say is that it’s consistent with the Likud chart that Netanyahu could sow Palestinian divisions to thwart the idea of a two state solution, as you claim. Yet it’s consistent with Netanyahu’s statements/beliefs and the general attitude of Israel toward Gaza (Israel was ready to give Gaza to Egypt and it already withdrew its settlers and military forces from Gaza in 2005) that the West Bank is politically more significant to Israel than Gaza. So it doesn’t look implausible to me that Netanyahu would have been willing to explore a form of coexistence with Hamas at the expense of Fatah, by letting a cash flow from Qatari replace the cash flow from the Palestinian Authority under his supervision. And this might have played well for Netanyahu in either ways: Hamas could have chosen to turn into a wealthy mafia organization de facto co-existing with Israel (the “buy quiet” option) and marginalizing Fatah's influence. Or Hamas could have chosen to keep pursing its anti-Israel resistance ("on steroids" if Qatari cash was such a big help), but in this case Netanyahu would have granted for Israel a good pretext for striking back at Hamas harder, to the point of eradicating Hamas from Gaza. However highly risky for the Israelis and for Netanyahu himself, the calculus doesn’t seem to me strategically unsound. Actually, it bears some similarity with the “carrot and stick” approach of the West toward Russia and China in the last 30 years or so, in that the load of money that flowed into Russia during the post-Cold War globalization (+ sanctions and bad propaganda in the name of human rights) was meant to push Russian and Chinese elites to focus on improving economic and civic standards of life for their people, instead of supporting their imperialist ambitions.
Fifth, even if Israeli support for Netanyahu looks irrecoverably compromised, yet Netanyahu’s strategy has played in favour of his political goals. Indeed, Israeli politicians from the opposition and ordinary citizens are more skeptical about the two state solution than they used to be and more convinced about the necessity of eradicating Hamas from Gaza.

Well, you did have the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, so things have gone quite similarly in that case. — ssu

Not similar. In the Warsaw uprising it was the resistance that led it, not the puppet authorities. The Warsaw ghetto uprising occurred because the Jews knew they were facing imminent deportation and death. Their leaders were not powerful millionaires/billionaires with ties to powerful nations. Every single person in that ghetto was essentially powerless & facing imminent death. They knew they were going to die, it was just a matter of how.

If the power dynamics were similar, you'd have IDF officers able to walk into the offices of Hamas and PA leaders and issue them orders. They be able to physically assault them without consequence and order their deaths.

And of course the goal was survival, not seizing Germany and declaring it Jewish & imposing Jewish religious law on Germany.

A genuine forever war would be the apt term here. — ssu

Which is why the victory must be complete and Hamas completely replaced.

Which is why the victory must be complete and Hamas completely replaced. — BitconnectCarlos

As well the zionfascist (Likud) regime also "must be" "completely replaced". :mask:

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, stop the crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours — Benkei

Israel cannot negotiate with a party that insists that Jerusalem is part of the Islamic ummah. From chapter 7 of the 2017 Hamas charter:

"7. Palestine is at the heart of the Arab and Islamic Ummah and enjoys a special status. Within Palestine there exists Jerusalem, whose precincts are blessed by Allah."

I'm not really interested what a war crime apologist has to say about who to negotiate with. People tend to negotiate with their enemies, not doing so just makes you dumb.

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine — Benkei

edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel — Benkei

Then why "unilaterally" ?

8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression — Benkei

Meaning? Policing too can be perceived as oppressive:
US justice is built to humiliate and oppress black men
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/11/chokehold-police-black-men-paul-butler-race-america
US must tackle police brutality against Black people head-on
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/05/us-police-brutality-un-experts-george-floyd

9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points — Benkei

So Israel should just trust Palestinian commitment? How about demilitarization and neutrality? How about the status of Jerusalem? Should it be integrally under the sovereignty of Israel?

a war crime apologist — Benkei

@BitconnectCarlos will just call you names as well, and so it goes ... (repeat ↵). And that's part of the problem. Old. :shrug:

I don't call Benkei names. I give him facts and he responds with ad homs.

Read the thread. He is one so it's not calling names but a statement of fact.

In fact, people's unwillingness to call it out is just a lack of moral clarity or understanding of the facts.

play-pretending as a victim again. It's factually correct that anyone who defends Israeli aggression is a war crime apologist.

A force of ~6000 breaches the Israeli border on 10/7 and viciously slaughters ~1200 and abducts ~250 and apparently in your reality any military response from Israel is a "war crime." Hostage rescue? War crime. Striking back at the perpetrators? War crime. It's all war crimes.

It's factually correct that anyone who defends Israeli aggression is a war crime(s) apologist. — Benkei

:up: :up:

aggression — 180 Proof

Heavily politicized and ultimately meaningless term in the context of the current conflict.

Then don't listen to politicians but international lawyers. This stuff is defined. Israel is the aggressor, Hamas commits a war crime and Israel uses it as an excuse to step up its decade old aggression by committing even worse war crimes.

Do you believe that Israel is permitted to respond (through force/militarily) to 10/7?

If Israel cannot find the culprits and instead sees as its only option to wage a bloody revenge campaign on a civilian population, the answer is obviously 'no'. :brow:

The IDF should have put its own house in order first by properly guarding the border. Instead of leaving the door wide open.

If the IDF and/or the Netanyahu government had taken responsibility for that unthinkable failure, maybe people would have been a bit less eager to vent their anger on Gaza and start massacring, hm?


It reminds me of the Europeans whinging about 'the Russian threat' as they arm Ukraine to the teeth, shun all diplomacy and constantly talk about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.

The world starts becoming awfully threatening if one has an attitude and the foresight of a fruit fly.

Something about glass houses.

Israel is the aggressor, Hamas commits a war crime and Israel uses it as an excuse to step up its decade old aggression by committing even worse war crimes. — Benkei

:100:

Yes but not as a right to self defence but retaliation because Hamas breached ius in bello, but as quickly became obvious not in the way it has done. Additionally, the Palestinians have a continual right to self defence meaning any IDF soldiers in Gaza and West Bank and any settlers there are fair game. And any military campaign in Israel proper aimed against military targets would be allowed too. Basically, Israel has no right to self defence where it concerns the occupied territories. And as long as it maintains its colonisation policies and colonies it remains an aggressor and attacks into Israel proper would fall under self defence for Palestinians instead.

Additionally, the Palestinians have a continual right to self defence meaning any IDF soldiers in Gaza and West Bank and any settlers there are fair game. And any military campaign in Israel proper aimed against military targets would be allowed too. — Benkei

Are you in favor of your country supporting Palestinian armed resistance by arming the Palestinian to the teeth? Or you'd prefer Iran do it because you are against violence?

Actually that's a question for all pro-Palestinians in this thread, why do not advocating for supporting the Palestinian armed resistance as Iran is doing? There shouldn't be anything bad about it since Palestinians have the right to self-defence, right?
Can you me point me to pro-Palestinian grass-root protests in day light publicly advocating for Western countries to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
NATO military intervened in ex-Yugoslavia because of genocides going on there too. So if Israel is a genocidal apartheid state massacring Palestinians, why Western pro-Palestinians do not advocate for a NATO military intervention in Palestine to end the genocide?

It would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel. But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. If it turns out that doesn't work, then arming Palestinians is the more ethical choice than arming Israel.