What the...

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

I don't believe the Gaza or WB are technically annexed; I've heard both referred to as 'self-governing' or 'disputed territories' but not part of Israel proper.

Regardless, if I was to ask you who was the aggressor on the Eastern front in WWII, you'd say Germany, right? But what about when the Soviets pushed them all the way back to Berlin and crossed Poland in the process? The Soviets crossed into Poland and ended up controlling part of Berlin, but were they aggressors in the war? No.

Before Operation Barbarossa the two sides has a truce and it was clearly Germany who was the aggressor. I've never heard any history or historians suggesting that the Soviets had aggressive intentions towards Germany during this period before the Germany attacked. Before the 6 day war the historical circumstances between Israel and the Arab world were extremely different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Persecution_by_Iraqi_authorities

In 1948, the year of Israel's independence, there were about 150,000 Jews in Iraq.[49] Persecution of Jews greatly increased that year:

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? — Xtrix

I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity.

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. — Xtrix

Israel uses many methods under normal circumstances to try to destroy and infiltrate Hamas - spies, intelligence, quick isolated raids against targets in the area; what you're seeing right now with the killing coming from Israeli is simply in response to Hamas escalating the situation earlier when they started firing the rockets after the Israelis raided al-Aqsa.

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? — Xtrix

Hamas stores and fires weapons from schools, hospitals, office buildings, and other populated areas. Additionally they have a large network of tunnels under civilian infrastructure so how are you going to hit those? Israel does not do this. Israel has a separate military infrastucture that exists apart form residential areas... it's like it is in the United States if Canada were to declare war on us and bomb a border town and then claim something like "well there might have been a General or soldier living there who knows." It just doesn't fly.

You keep repeating this over and over again. No one is defending Hamas. No one. Least of all me. — Xtrix

I know. I was just questioning your reasoning earlier; you were upset that the kill count was so imbalanced and (and if I understood you correctly) due to that you were sympathetic to the Palestinians. If more Israelis died would you more sympathetic to Israel?

"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? — Xtrix

So what is your suggestion? We're both on the same page here - we want to minimize casualties but do you just want to use a different type of ammunition? Give me concrete suggestion.

https://twitter.com/YosephHaddad/status/1394900465498869762

^A real illustration of the difficulty of the situation. You want to further decrease casualties on the Palestinian side? Good luck.

I don't believe the Gaza or WB are technically annexed; I've heard both referred to as 'self-governing' or 'disputed territories' but not part of Israel proper. — BitconnectCarlos

You were saying that in 1967 Israel wasn't the aggressor.

After the 1967 war the Israeli borders were like this:

Israel withdrew its Settlements from The Gaza Strip and that clearly reduced it's security and also made it much more difficult for Gazans to travel freely in Israel and to the West Bank — Andrew4Handel

Was this before or after Israel blockaded its ports of entry and exit, whittled away its key infrastructure like electricity, water, roads, sewerage, and medical services, crippled its economy, restricted the population's caloric intake, continually barred the entry of human rights observers and international reporters, mired it in poverty, dismantled education opportunities, imposed vaccine apartheid during a global pandemic, shrunk its territory, regularly employed lethal force in situations that did not call for it, and engaged in periodic warfare involving copious war crimes? To name a small part of a much larger list that doesn't even cover the documented crimes against humanity in the West Bank.

Israel struck first because the Egyptians closed the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping and then began mobilizing on the border after kicking out UNEF. I don't consider Israel the aggressor in this conflict, it was well known before that a closure of that strait would be an act of war and Egypt went ahead with it regardless and then began mobilizing.

The fact that a country acquired a land after a war is irrelevant as to whether they were the aggressors.

I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

That would be stupid considering Hamas currently has a much more pragmatic leadership than before, willing to discuss 1967 borders - and possibly less if a Palestinian referendum would support it.

Furthermore to correct your errors.

Gaza was under the control of Egypt. West Bank under Jordan. The Golan Heights part of Syria.

These areas were annexed by Israel.

When you annex territory, you simply can't deny being an aggressor.

When you annex territory, you simply can't deny being an aggressor. — ssu

Was the Soviet Union the aggressor after the pushing back the Germans on the Eastern front? Poland fell under their control. So did Berlin. Do we describe the USSR as the aggressor in this war?

Occupation and settlement/annexation are two different things. The military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression, because they withdrew and no Russian ever claimed east Germany was Russian.

The imposition of rule through client states was complex. Quite a few countries joined the block willingly. Whatever crime there was, wasn't a crime of aggression.

Hmm, it's like the fall of the Berlin Wall in which the ejection of an unspeakably brutal occupying power is not today celebrated as among history's most momentous occasions! :chin: :chin: :chin:

Would be totally cool if a certain present situation might one day come to an end in such celebrated manner after decades of universally acknowledged horror! :love: :love: :love:

Yay historical parallels! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

Or will someone chime in about thr CoMpLeXiTy of East German misery and how 'you can't just get rid of the wall' because HiStOrY iS CoMpLiCaTeD? :gasp: :gasp: :gasp:

I'm not asking about whether Soviet control of East Berlin was good; I'm asking whether we can conclude that the Soviets were the aggressors in WW2 because they came to control part of Berlin/Germany.... and that answer is no.

The military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression, because they withdrew and no Russian ever claimed east Germany was Russian.

The imposition of rule through client states was complex. Quite a few countries joined the block willingly. Whatever crime there was, wasn't a crime of aggression. — Benkei

The reason that the military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression was because the Germans were the ones who initiated aggression and the Soviets were responding to that. Even if the USSR claimed East Germany for itself it wouldn't have changed the fact that the Germans were the aggressors in WWII.

Israel doesn't claim Gaza or WB as being Israel proper even if they do maintain military superiority and preparedness.

I'm not asking about whether Soviet control of East Berlin was good; I'm asking whether we can conclude that the Soviets were the aggressors in WW2 because they came to control part of Berlin/Germany.... and that answer is no. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of you backtracking on your historical example because the most pertinent part of it - the decades long occupation by a murderous regime - proves the exact opposite of the point you wanted to make. You can, of course, try again.

Streetlight, all we're talking about WW2 here. This is the scope of the conversation - nothing past it. That is all ssu and I were talking about - "who is the aggressor in X war?" It doesn't matter what happens in the years after.

On a sidenote it is somewhat reassuring to see you condemning the Soviet Union.

This is the scope of the conversation — BitconnectCarlos

That's the scope of the conversation you'd like to have, considering that even a moment's reflection upon its consequences would make parallels which you're obviously squirming about trying to avoid.

that was the conversation that ssu and I were having before you decided to jump in and criticize me for not talking about a different subject.

Read: "jump in and draw out the natural implication of my own example". Squirm more, genocide apologist.

Speaking of genocide apology, since Hamas openly executes and persecutes LGBTQ wouldn't this qualify as genocide for you? And that by that I mean Hamas towards its own Palestinian LGBTQ population. There was an article from news week not too long ago about the hellish life of LGBTQ in Gaza.

Lets start having conversations that you don't want to have.

Oh I'm sorry would you like to change the subject again? In any case, don't pretend you give a flying hoot about LGBTQ issues, you opportunistic weasel. Besides rolling out a talking-point right out of IDF Twitter, conveniently weaponizing a sliver of wokeness for which you'd otherwise couldn't care less about is the lowest form of cynical manipulation. When you even begin to show a mediocum of care about the people that Israel is bombing to smithereens, I might even consider that your newfound insincere concern for LGBTQ rights has any substance to it at all.

But don't let that distract us. Tell me more about the Soviet occupation of East Germany and its evils, while you were on the subject. I'm still waiting.

See these are the conversations you don't want to have. You're shutting down conversation here. Now who's the quiet one? You call me the one who's ignoring suffering, I can turn it right back on you and it's super easy.

You're just annoyed because you think I'm being insincere when in reality my sincerity is completely irrelevant. Does the problem exist or not? That's all you gotta ask.

In any case, don't pretend you give a flying hoot about LGBTQ issues, you opportunistic weasel. Besides rolling out a talking-point right out of IDF Twitter, conveniently weaponizing a sliver of wokeness for which you'd otherwise couldn't care less about is the lowest form of cynical manipulation — StreetlightX

I am a gay person and I definitely do care. Supporting Islamic fundamentalist regimes and claiming to care about peoples welfare makes your whole position untenable hypocritical nonsense.

You're shutting down conversation here. — BitconnectCarlos

Lol, you're so transparent. I'd watch every Hamas leader rot in the ground for what they're doing to LGBTQ people in Palestine - right next to Israeli leadership in the same miserable dirt. Considering the one was funded and encouraged by the other. Not that you could say the same.

None of this being of any relevance to Israeli settler colonialism and the atrocities it continues to commit.

But nice try at changing the subject from your shitty historical parallel.

Hamas persecutes innocent Palestinians. Therefore, why can't Israel kill them? I mean if you're against Israel's disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians then surely you must support every despicable thing Hamas does to them too, right?

This is why I love letting these people show themselves for who they are - they honestly think everyone else is as morally vacuous as they are, and they present gotchyas like HeRp-DeRp HaMaS KiLls the GaYs and then they expects you to.. defend them? Like, it's so easy to expose these unprincipled, opportunistic rats for what they are.

You're impressing me today: Just today you've both condemned the Soviet Union and you've condemned Hamas for their treatment of LGBTQ -- and done so strongly -- which was more than 180 was able to do. :party:

I'm on the same page with you here; the Hamas leadership deserves to rot in the ground and Israel's been working towards this goal.

I like your current position - that both sides suck - much more than your previous strategy of only criticizing one side through your writing. Presumably, you can now criticize both more evenly. Huge improvement.

If the Russians had annexed land like Israel has done through its settler policy and had politicians in power actively claiming the goal is to annex the whole of Germany, they might have started as a "defensive war" but the end result would be qualified as aggression. I'm sorry but international law is clear on this - you can't win land through conquest any more - it's aggression by definition. There's a clear distinction between occupation and settlement/annexation, as I already stated and which you conveniently didn't quote.

I like your current position - that both sides suck - much more than your previous strategy of only criticizing one side through your writing. Presumably, you can now criticize both more evenly. Huge improvement. — BitconnectCarlos

Nope. Israel bears fulls responsibility for everything that is happening, and anyone who 'both-sides' it is a fucking moron.

For everything that's happening? Including Hamas persecuting LGBTQ? That is Israel's fault? When Hamas executes its own civilians for gay sex that is Israel's doing? That is what you are telling me?

Considering Israel was directly responsible for the creation of Hamas - and the conditions which perpetuate its existence - yes.