https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-intercepts-drone-near-jordanian-border-as-gaza-fighting-continues-1.9818178

The IDF added that they it was examining the origins of the drone, and whether it came from Syria or Jordan. It has reported multiple drone launches by Hamas forces over the course of the fighting, including a explosives-laden unit that was downed and “fell on the launch squad” in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, killing two militants.

1. Palestinians have a right to self-determination as well;
2. The Arabs were opposed to any type of partition in 1948 because they believed the rule "of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants", that included Jews and Arabs at the time;
3. In accordance with Bretton-Woods, acquisition of land through warfare is illegal because aggression is illegal;
4. You cannot acquire land through defensive war, because you cannot logically defend what wasn't yours to begin with;
5. Therefore the acquisition of land beyond the 1948 partition plan is predicated on the war crime from which all war crimes stem: the act of aggression;
6. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are therefore illegal;
7. All settlements not in accordance with the 1948 lines are therefore iilegal and should be removed;
8. The Palestinians have been more than generous several times over to agree to solutions close to the 1967 borders;
9. The reason why the Israeli haven't agreed is because the right-wing political zionism, which has been in power most of the time, especially for the last 24 years, is intent on establishing an Israel from the Jordan river to the sea; — Benkei

1. Sure and Israel has offered to give them a state in the past, but with Hamas in power Israel is absolutely under no obligation to go in that direction these days. Hamas is a terrorist group, not a legitimate government. Giving them independent statehood is a serious security concern for Israel.
2. "revert to its inhabitants" is just rhetoric. they just wanted to maintain the status quo with arabs in charge. It's always been fine if there's a state where Arabs are in charge with a Jewish minority.
3. Israelis did not aggress in '67.
4. But you can uproot the forces that were trying to destroy you. russia was still defending when it pressed into germany. were the allies "aggressing" by pressing into germany? sure you can say that they were going on the offensive, but to describe them as the "aggressors" in the conflict seems strange to me.
5. In 1948 the arabs declared war on Israel and sought to wipe it out. there was talk of a second holocaust at the time. Land taken and held in '48 was a necessary security measure and I'm not going to apologize for it. Israel was extremely vulnerable w/ 1947 boundaries.
8. Could you just expound a little further on this?
9. i'll agree with you that the israeli government is more recalcitrant that it was in the past and this is due to several factors, but then again so is hamas. neither side right now has a serious interest in peace.

You're making these demands of Israel but it's never going to be your family who bears the repercussions. It's easy to tell Israel to loosen their security or to let Hamas import anything completely unrestricted or to give back half their land when you're halfway around the world. If there was a homeless problem in your community would you be willing to let some live in your home? How would you feel about fundamentalists muslims as your neighbors? They need a place to live too, why not next to you? They can invite their friends over too.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/how-israels-gaza-conflict-allowed-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-to-stay-in-power/news-story/1e120717b08d880494e5ce42cd52b6b9

"Less than a week ago, Netanyahu’s career was on the rocks... A diverse collection of competing political parties finally found something to agree upon: the controversial PM’s time was up. And opposing politicians were just days away from agreeing on a new coalition.

Then came forced evictions of Israeli Arabs. Then ultra-Orthodox parades through holy sites began shouting “death to Arabs”. Then Israeli police stormed Al Aqsa mosque. Now, the leader of a right-wing party pivotal to the challenge on Netanyahu’s power – and the man tipped to take the top job – has declared the move to be “off the table”.

Why? Naftali Bennett’s Yamina (New Right) party supports Jewish-Israeli settlements within territories allocated to Palestine under a 1948 UN mandate. But his unlikely coalition of Netanyahu opponents included an Islamist Arab-Israeli party. And the sudden surge in civil unrest has made such an alliance untenable."

Imagine supporting war crimes so some corrupt politician can retain his hold on power, all the while bleating about Hamas while Israel murders children in real time.

Imagine supporting war crimes so some corrupt politician can retain his hold on power, all the while bleating about Hamas while Israel murders children in real time. — StreetlightX

It's not a new tactic.

But it does get progressively worse since Gaza suffers from each "war". Such considerations should automatically impeach any prime minister or president who goes to war prior to an election.

Not unlike the US going to Iraq prior to the 2004 elections.

Nevertheless, one positive aspect out of this carnage is that public opinion has never been as strong as it is now for the Palestinian cause. Took way too many deaths to get to this point. Yet here we are.

But we still don't know when this assault will stop...

:100:

apologies for Bibi wagging the dog with escalating war crimes are both stupid & deceitful. — 180 Proof

Everybody's ancestors were fucking slaves at some time. Go suck on that. Just 3-4 generations ago my ancestors were slaves AND, the mulatto ones from St. Anne's Bay & Spanish Town, were slaveholders as late as WW I (despite the UK outlawing slavery about 70 years before). 1963, the year I born, Jim Crow apartheid was still very much a live issue in the US; as a child, elderly survivors told me stories from the Deep South of plantation life and their formerly enslaved parents & grandparents. (So gfy, Andy, my bona fides is sketched-out on p.13 of this thread.) I've also been a life long student of the extant scholarship on both slavery and ethnic cleasing, and their egregous transgenerational socioeconomic legacies, particularly here in the Americas, Africa and the Meditteranean basin. That's overkill compared to your demonstrated, Dunning Kruger, fatuous know-nothing-ism, I know; so run along now and go play slap-and-tickle with the other moral cretins and mindless asslicking Netanyahu apologists. :shade:

As promised, here is the Gideon Levy interview from two days ago. Worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4pPP0wVFnY

"Israelis ... they don't want to know." ~Gideon Levy

Thanks for the link.

:up:

You could not care less about the genocide of LGBTQ Palestinians by Hamas. You only care, or pretend to care, about violence when it is interracial or across ethnic lines. You do not care about flesh and blood individuals and their actual sources of suffering, only about fomenting racial tension and intergroup conflict. I'll have to look out for others like you in the future. Thanks for the discussion.

You're so much smarter than me, I have no fucking idea what you're jibber-jabbering about. From the few used tissue shreds of sense you do make, BC, clearly it's better that I don't. STFD, pinhead.

If you truly cared about the suffering of the Palestinian people you'd want Hamas destroyed.

Like the US got rid of Al Qaeda and The Taliban?

You won't get rid of Hamas by killing it. You could kill its leaders, new ones will come in, probably worse. Look at how ISIS arose.

It's cliché, but it's true: you can't kill an idea. Or even an ideology. You can only change moods and expectations by changing the circumstances that led the people in Gaza to choose Hamas in the first place.

If you truly cared about the suffering of the Palestinian people you'd want Hamas destroyed. — BitconnectCarlos

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed. Both are carrying out terroristic acts against innocent people. The difference: Netanyahu has killed far more people, including children. You can't seem to get your mind around this, and so have to focus solely on Hamas while ignoring Israel.

Let me try to make it clearer: no one is saying that Hamas sending rockets into Israel is a good thing. The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians. And not to pretend that every bombing is an "accident" or that it was aimed at Hamas (ask yourself if this pretext was used by Hamas -- would you buy it?).

We're either in favor of terrorism and the killing of innocent citizens or we're not. Condemning Hamas for killing innocent human beings is absolutely correct; now simply swapping "Hamas" for "Israel's government" and including Palestinians in the "human being" category, and we're in total agreement. That's the first step, and really shouldn't be hard if we have the slightest bit of empathy or morality as a people.

The second step is the ability to count. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude. No false equivalency here -- the power inequality is obvious. If you can't recognize that, you're deluding yourself.

Taking out media buildings is also a war crime.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior.

It's cliché, but it's true: you can't kill an idea. Or even an ideology. You can only change moods and expectations by changing the circumstances that led the people in Gaza to choose Hamas in the first place. — Manuel

Exactly right. Same with Israel and the people they elect. But it's just pure confusion to equate the two, when one is a gigantic bully, funded and backed (economically and diplomatically) by the world's superpower (the United States), who have lead a vicious occupation for decades, with the people being occupied and oppressed, with little resources and no military or economic backing by the US.

Bitconnect and others want to ignore this imbalance (and history), as if it's irrelevant. It's essentially blaming the victim. When there is finally a reaction, the reaction is used as an excuse to decimate them even further, all under the guise of "self-defense."

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed. — Xtrix

I might want Netanyahu out of office, but I wouldn't say "destroyed." That's something completely different. I don't want the Israeli state destroyed.

The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians. — Xtrix

Hamas builds their military infrastructure intertwined with civilian infrastructure. You tell me how to properly attack them with zero civilian casualties, General.

How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude. — Xtrix

Israel has a missile defense system which stops 90% of the rockets. Hamas would kill many more Israelis if they could, they're just attempting to and failing and you're holding that low casualty number against Israel. Also among the Palestinian victim count are Palestinians killed by Hamas rockets that misfire, which is actually around 20-25% of them. That's at least 700 rockets fired by Hamas that hit the Gaza area. Last I heard at least 8 children were killed this during one of these misfires.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior. — Xtrix

If there was an easy way to go after Hamas without killing civilians I'd be all for it. But there's not. We can get Bibi out of office though if there was a legal procedure for that, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

Exactly.

It's not dissimilar from the US reaction in relation to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Afghanistan isn't even mentioned.

BitconnectCarlos, for example, recognizes that Israel is not perfect and that settlements are a "necessary evil". This would be the equivalent of what a patriot Democrat or a "centrist Republican" would say about US policy in Iraq at the time, in terms of war crimes and all the mess that comes with that.

But putting Carlos aside for the moment, It's very, very hard to step away from your country and look at it neutrally. It's a bit like critiquing your family. But this doesn't take away from the facts you point out.

Once you find out that "terrorism" is not limited to Muslims at all, and that the meaning of the word is essentially violence, then things become clear. And we use this word to refer to all acts of violence on behalf of states.

If someone doesn't accept this fact about terrorism, then one can begin to make these distinctions of an "army" vs. "fanatics" of "defense" vs "terror" and so on. And then you begin looking for justifications for things which lack them.

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed.
— Xtrix

I might want Netanyahu out of office, but I wouldn't say "destroyed." That's something completely different. I don't want the Israeli state destroyed. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm glad you can take a nuanced for of this. You're right. But notice I didn't say Israeli state, I said Netanyahu's government. By your standards, I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct?

The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians.
— Xtrix

Hamas has built military infrastructure intertwined with civilian infrastructure. You tell me how to properly attack them with zero civilian casualties, General. — BitconnectCarlos

There are all kinds of ways, that don't involved killing innocent people. With the resources that Israel has, it's kind of a joke to say this is their only recourse.

What if the roles were reversed, and Hamas made the same claims -- that bombing Israel was unavoidable because the leaders are "intertwined" with civilians? After all, political and military leaders don't simply live in government buildings. You accept this logic?

How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude.
— Xtrix

Israel has a missile defense system which stops 90% of the rockets. Hamas would kill many more Israelis if they could, they're just attempting to and failing and you're holding that low casualty number against Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

You keep repeating this over and over again. No one is defending Hamas. No one. Least of all me. You're basically pointing out that Israel has far greater defense mechanisms and military might than Hamas -- far more advanced, far better funded, far more sophisticated, etc. Yes, no kidding. That's exactly the point here.

So yes, I'm absolutely holding it against Israel that they're clearly the stronger force. All the more reason not to succumb to behavior which we condemn the other side for doing -- namely, killing innocent people.

If it's wrong for Hamas to "intend" it, it's wrong for Israel to actually do it.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior.
— Xtrix

If there was an easy way to go after Hamas without killing civilians I'd be all for it. But there's not. We can get Bibi out of office though, I wouldn't be opposed to that. — BitconnectCarlos

"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem?

Not as "easy," perhaps, but not impossible. I'd say that's worth doing in spite of being "harder" rather than killing innocent children.

(Accepting a ceasefire is an “easy” first step btw.)

3. Israelis did not aggress in '67. — BitconnectCarlos

?

Think you are mixing the Six Day War with Yom Kippur war here. Or something.

Do you think you can overlook the killing of 6 million people. Obviously it is relevant to the situation in the Middle as part of history. The expulsion of Jews from Israel by the Romans, the ensuing diaspora the crusades, pogroms and so on. Where did the Jews originate from and the Hebrew Language. The Jews are mentioned in the Quran. — Andrew4Handel

I think one of the reasons why this conflict continues is the belief that Israel has a special right, or claim, to Palestine (by which I mean the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). I'm uncertain whether you share that belief. Statements like those you made I've quoted above suggest you do. The references you make in other posts to a "land conflict" and your criticisms of "ownership" of property suggest you do not.

Personally, I don't know where the Jews originated (though I do know how they did--by the bearing of children), or where the Hebrew language came to be spoken, written. The Old Testament indicates neither the Jews nor Hebrew originated in Palestine. Instead, it indicates they exterminated those who were there before them or drove them from that land, and were granted it by God.

Regardless, I don't think the fact that a certain people lived in a certain place a long time ago and have always wanted to live there means they have a claim to it that entitles them to live there once again or always. I think this particularly true where those said to have such a claim have been largely absent from the land since the time of Hadrian. Likewise, I don't think God grants rights or title to property.

So, I think there's no reasonable basis for the contention that Palestine is the Jewish homeland or that the Jews have rights in it superior to those of others for religious or other reasons. That belief merely encourages violence, and war.

If that belief is not accepted, we have a situation in which it was decided by certain great powers that a Jewish state would be created which would come to exist in land inhabited at the time by people who felt very strongly that state should not exist. Unsurprisingly, they resented the imposition of that state.
Unsurprisingly, the result was, and still is, a disaster. I think it was foolish for anyone to think that the creation of the State of Israel wouldn't result in continuing conflict. Frankly, I think this was anticipated, but it wasn't of the greatest concern to those involved in the creation of the state.

What matters now is what's taking place now, but what's taking place now won't be resolved unless what took place then is disregarded by all sides and a "separate peace" arrived at. I doubt that will take place until one side or the other wins out completely, or "peace" at least in the sense of a cessation of hostilities is imposed by third parties.

:100:

Frankly, I think this was anticipated, but it wasn't of the greatest concern to those involved in the creation of the state. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. Like the preeminent example of white privilege, letting former slave-owners back into real- and personal property ownership after the civil war. The combatants were tired, wanted to move on, and didn't really care about the slaves all that much anyway. "Here Jewish People, take this and leave us alone. Those indigs won't give you much trouble." :roll:

You blindly, deceitfully, talk of Hamas while you willfully ignore pleas for mercy on behalf of the Palestinian people. That sling's only Goliath's excuse for once again attacking and torturing David; so what was the excuse before Goliath had helped David make that sling – before Hamas? before Fatah? before ...? Azazel's demand of fresh scapegoats is insatiable (Leviticus 16:8) so the IDF must keep feeding the beast, is that it?

I care about the dignity and self-determination of David as he resists oppression of bloodthirsty Goliath. Solidarity always with the oppressed – Jew or Gentile – against every oppressor. If you cared about the Israeli people, now and in the long-run, you would call for them to rise up today, oust war criminal Bibi's regime, and break the nearly sixty year cycle of oppression as only they, the oppressors, can.

This is just a semantic issue. Yes, Israel went on the offensive but I wouldn't call Israel the aggressor (therefore they didn't aggress.) If A starts attacking B and B manages to gain the upper hand and subdues A, B is not the aggressor. A was the aggressor even despite B managing to come out on top.

Yes. All settler colonialism is like this. At least the Israeli's didn't kill them all when they created the state. Maybe they would've liked to, less trouble for them today. But they got into the state building affair a couple hundred years late, when it was more complicated to eradicate people willy-nilly and they couldn't conquer the whole Arab world.

Not that what happens today is nice - the contrary, it is most horrific.

How history might have been different if colonialism took place 150 years later. Maybe more indigenous people would be alive.

People now see Gaza and are shocked. How would we see what happened to indigenous people in the whole American continent, parts of Africa, Australia and the like?

All settler colonialism is like this. — Manuel

Indeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636%E2%80%93637)

The siege of Jerusalem was part of the Muslim conquest of the Levant and the result of the military efforts of the Rashidun Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire in the year 636-637/38. The Muslim conquest of the city solidified Arab control over Palestine, which would not again be threatened until the First Crusade in 1099.

But they got into the state building affair a couple hundred years late, when it was more complicated to eradicate people willy-nilly and they couldn't conquer the whole Arab world. — Manuel

True. I can't help but think that while the Jews are looking at their own history, Palestinians are looking at history in general, and how colonialism worked in the past. and saying: "Not this time!" It starts with an inch and becomes a mile. As I used to opine on the wilderness movement and "compromise": We keep slicing the the pie until the last slice is thinner than the knife we would cut it with. Pretty soon compromise means giving some back.

I think one of the reasons why this conflict continues is the belief that Israel has a special right, or claim, to Palestine (by which I mean the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). I'm uncertain whether you share that belief. Statements like those you made I've quoted above suggest you do. The references you make in other posts to a "land conflict" and your criticisms of "ownership" of property suggest you do not. — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, my guess is a lot of people with a blind spot for Israel have some sort of Abrahamic belief. The current understanding, as far as I know, is that the Hebrews just were Canaanites, and it's questionable whether the united monarchy and first temple are historical. But still, it's worth mentioning – God doesn't give anyone land! It doesn't work that way! If that fact were accepted, much of the talk would be demystified.

Yeah. I've been reading lately about the genocides in California. The Californios and Oregonians were also 'just defending themselves,' and so on. The state was emptied of the vast majority of its native inhabitants in just a few decades, with the U.S. military playing a large role. It becomes harder to not see these things if you just have examples of other instances of genocide in history to reference.

Well you point to something important. If we go back far enough, everybody's an invader or colonialist of some kind.

Maybe not the Aborigines in Australia. But in many parts of the world this is the case. But now it would be silly for country X to say to country Y "my people lived here 500-2500 years ago, this is rightfully mine." It would be a million wars.

Settler colonialism is ending. Israel might be the last place in which this is practiced from the European lineage. Now we look at Gaza and see monstrosities, which they are. Human history is ugly...



Absolutely. I think if Israel doesn't go back to resolution 242 and help with a "two state solution" of some kind, as a start, they may be leading down a path of destruction.

The Samson Option, mentioned by Handel4 or whatever name he uses is crazy. In effect it would mean Israel would be willing to bring down the whole world if it feels threatened by bombing Europe!

I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't brought up, because it sounds so insane. But it's a doctrine they have. How seriously they take this, is an open question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

One author's interpretation goes like this:

"...in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option."

Chomsky corroborates something similar to this, it's called "nishtagea" in Hebrew.

This is just a semantic issue. Yes, Israel went on the offensive but I wouldn't call Israel the aggressor (therefore they didn't aggress.) If A starts attacking B and B manages to gain the upper hand and subdues A, B is not the aggressor. A was the aggressor even despite B managing to come out on top. — BitconnectCarlos

What the...

So an attack that which ends up with annexations of lands from Jordan, Syria and Egypt isn't aggression?

By the end of the war, Israel had expelled another 300,000 Palestinians from their homes, including 130,000 who were displaced in 1948, and gained territory that was three and a half times its size.

With that logic I assume you think that Operation Barbarossa was just a pre-emptive attack, hence a defensive operation. And turned out to be one unsuccessful one in that. But Stalin was planning for a war!

The Samson Option — Manuel

Sounds like an evangelical Christian wet dream. The Jewish people who are capable of parsing the people from the Israeli state know that Jews are all over the place and not going anywhere. They are welcome here and in many places. There's no need to burn the damn house down. On the other hand, I can think of a planet that would probably be glad to see all humans go.