Now I have to disagree.

It is a war. Trying to make this conflict to be something else is wrong in my view. A low intensity conflict or a conflict that erupts every once and a while is a war. Even with the 100-years war there were moments when nothing happened with large battles being the exception. — ssu

A war requires two sovereign nations. We have one country basically controlling all the land. It's not a war.

I stopped reading here. — BitconnectCarlos

No doubt, as a post filled with strawmen & non sequiturs show, you're a willfully ignorant apologist for zionfascism. :shade:

:up:

driven by religious extremists on both sides.

Bibi is not a religious extremist. There are secular Jews who are right-wing and devout Jews who are not right-wing. I don't believe Zionism is inherently correlated to Jewish religiosity.

I don't think there's any truly secular force in palestinian society. Nor do I hold a favorable bias towards secular palestinians but I could be convinced otherwise if you have the data to back it up.

I don't believe Zionism is inherently correlated to Jewish religiosity.

I don't think ... — BitconnectCarlos

Your willful ignorance is stunning, BC. :sweat:

, here's what I already wrote (I thought there'd been enough repetition):
Two important problems (out of more): injustice and threat. The Palestinians ought to see ongoing justice, the Jews ought to see ongoing existential safety, things enjoyed by many nations.
Blindness to just one of them isn't helping, is part of the problem, and seems to have hit you and @BitconnectCarlos alike.
Say, what do you have in mind for Israel then? International isolation? Recolonization? Tzeentch's scenario? Who cares? You might as well say so (if you have anything) for further discussion. @BitconnectCarlos apparently thinks in terms of erasing Hamas entirely, except others will emerge, plus there are other neighbors (mentioned by @Tzeentch). What about two states?

But I offered arguments and evidences, not slogans. — neomac

If you offered arguments, you didn't offer evidence. And your argument is like saying that all Americans support the Democrats, because they are in power. And Hamas hold little if anything now, with the West Bank being in control of the Fatah. Which makes your arguments simply poor.

A war requires two sovereign nations. — Benkei

Really, it doesn't!

Civil wars are wars, really. By all accounts.

Chechnya wasn't sovereign state. So aren't the Kurds and a multitude of other people or groups that have fought against one state or another. There's uh... history in general to show this.

You simply cannot make the argument that this conflict isn't a war as the Palestinians, from time to time with the resources they have, have taken up an armed struggle. If it was all passive protesting (or protests in general), then the conflict wouldn't be a war.

a civil war isn't just a war now is it? But this is also not a civil war because Palestinians aren't Israelis. Furthermore, most slave revolts and decolonalisation struggles weren't qualified as a war. So what type of war is this according to you?

It's an armed struggle sure but that doesn't make it war.

BitconnectCarlos apparently thinks in terms of erasing Hamas entirely, except others will emerge, plus there are other neighbors (mentioned by Tzeentch). What about two states? — jorndoe

I would love to erase Hamas and establish a Palestinian leadership that is more amenable to peace with Israel. Then we could consider a two state solution if peace and trust can be established. Right now, two states is too risky because it would allow Hamas to import heavy weaponry and in turn massively destabilize the region.

But Hamas was amenable to peace. It's been Israel that refused to treat, every time. So one again you lie and use it as an excuse to not treat with them for peace.

BTW, to clarify, when I said a war between equals I mean they should both be sovereign nations I don't expect any kind of equality in power.

Wikipedia on the 2017 Hamas Charter:

In May 2017 Palestinian political and military organization Hamas unveiled A Document of General Principles and Policies (وثيقة المبادئ والسياسات العامة لحركة حماس), also referred to as the new or revised Hamas charter.[1][2] It accepted the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, i.e. comprising the West Bank and Gaza strip only,[3] on the condition that also the Palestinian refugees were allowed to return to their homes,[4] if it is clear this is the consensus of the Palestinians[5] ("a formula of national consensus"[6]); but at the same time this document strove for the "complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea",[2][6] and did not explicitly recognize Israel.[3]

The "right of return" results in the destruction of Israel. So no, Hamas does not strive for peace with Israel. For the millionth time, they seek to destroy it. As they always have.

The "right of return" results in the destruction of Israel. So no, Hamas does not strive for peace with Israel. For the millionth time, they seek to destroy it. As they always have. — BitconnectCarlos

How does the right of return result in the destruction of Israel? Walk me through it.

If you offered arguments, you didn't offer evidence — ssu

.

Which is evidently false. For example, in my previous post I claimed “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time” (notice that is a generic generalization, not a universal generalization). And reported the evidence supporting it:
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806498

You may not like it, but it’s false to claim that I offered none. Besides, if you do not find them convincing, explain why and then provide more convincing evidences to support your claim than the ones I provided to support mine.

And your argument is like saying that all Americans support the Democrats, because they are in power. And Hamas hold little if anything now, with the West Bank being in control of the Fatah. Which makes your arguments simply poor. — ssu

But that’s not “my arguments” at all. You should counterargue the arguments I actually made not the ones you wish to compare them to, because they are more easy to contradict.
Concerning the comparison, first, I didn’t write anywhere “all Palestinians support Hamas” (which would be like “all Americans support the Democrats”). My generic generalisation (“Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time”) is grounded on the evidences I provided (not only, though). I have no interest in overestimating the Palestinian support for Hamas (here is one Palestinian who is manifestly anti-Hamas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosab_Hassan_Yousef).
Second, I repeatedly clarified what I mean by “pro-Hamas”. In short: they “do not need to explicitly justify Hamas’ response to Israel to be considered pro-Hamas, they can even condemn it (many actually do, when solicited), yet they will complain about Israel in relative terms as way worse than Hamas, and as the one who started all of it, no matter the Jewish history and Israeli security concerns.” If holding a certain narrative (like Israel started it as a colonialist state, and Israel did WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse than Hamas because actually genocidal and apartheid) is more instrumental to Hamas than to Israel, then it is enough for me to label it as pro-Hamas (as much as my views being more instrumental to Israel than to Hamas, can be labelled “pro-Israel”). One can get the pro-Palestinian sentiment also from social media: ”For instance, hashtags loaded with political implication, such as #freepalestine, have over 9,442,504 posts while #freepalestinefromhamas has over 41,424 posts”. (Source: https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/scrolling-social-media-sentiments-on-the-gaza-war/) which suggests that Hamas (and their methods) is not perceived as the main obstacle to free Palestine, which means that Israel security concerns are not addressed as Israel would need. Another interesting study of social media consistent with what just said is this: https://www.isjq.ir/article_89793_d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e.pdf
Palestinian activists mainly use social media either to stir solidarity to the Palestinian cause from the rest of the World, or to advocate for violent resistance: neither of which are ways to address Israel’s security concerns as Israel would need, right?
Third, if Hamas hold little if anything now, it is because Hamas was holding enough, if not too much before. And Netanyahu looks determined to eradicate Hamas’ organization and infrastructure from Gaza, until he is satisfied with it. But more to the point, what is the claim that “Hamas hold little if anything now” supposed to prove wrt the evidences I provided to support my claim that “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time” or that pro-Palestinians are more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel?

Don't you have a master's degree? Why do I need to explain this to you? Or maybe you're just messing with me.

The genocide continues, thanks to Bibi. Another Hitler wannabe. How sadly ironic.

It's an armed struggle sure but that doesn't make it war. — Benkei

"WAR: a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.

This is an armed conflict. There is no way to deny it. Operation Al Aqsa flood was a military operation. So was the vast mobilization of Israeli reserves and the Operation Swords of Iron is one of the largest military operations that Israel has done. Not to call this war is simply whimsical.

But people try to do it to portray a war as something else. I think the most successful in this have been the British calling the conflict in Northern Ireland "The Troubles", not the low intensity conflict and insurgency what it was. Only actually now, when the conflict is past history, even the British Armed Forces do admit in their history of the conflict that it was an insurgency.

The reason is simple: War is already a catastrophe in politics, especially a civil war. And even if we have terms like "legal combatant" and "illegal combatant", war does define the participants differently from peace time. In war you can have a truce, even a peace deal. With ordinary criminals that use violence you don't (if you're Mexico and are against your cartels, necessity can make you act so).

I assume that you, @Benkei, consider talking here of a war being not adequate to describe the situation, but I think it fits perfectly. In this war one side dominates while the other side refuses to "surrender", which is quite usual in a war.

For example, in my previous post I claimed “Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time — neomac

Which is understandable, because with the armed resistance comes the Israeli bombs. In "peace time" the authoritarian rule of Hamas among other issues can be a problem, but comparing that to be bombed all the time and have to move around and not be in your home, that is quite little. Something like "rallying around the flag". Which btw shows that both sides, Hamas and Bibi's government, aren't looking for a peaceful solution here.

And we were actually talking about the American student protests and if they are such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and it's objectives... or not.

Seems rather important since you think it justifies not treating for peace, no? Since I quite obviously disagree and believe the right of return is a basic human right, you should at least make an attempt defending your position.

No international lawyer describes it as a war because these aren't groups within the same country, it's a group in an occupied territory and another group from a country. The occupied territory is not considered a sovereign nation and even the recent recognition doesn't change this, because there's no de facto sovereignty if you do not control your own territory. It doesn't meet the standards for war, which in any case isn't the appropriate definition anymore.

Today we talk about the use of force, which definition also doesn't really fit if you ask governments that don't recognise Palestine:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. — Un charter 2(4)

Right of return means millions of Palestinians coming to Israel. Israel can neither support such a thing nor does it bode well politically. There would be fighting in the streets.

So Palestinians have a right to return but you shouldn't do it because it would be difficult? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Why would there be fighting in the streets? How do you know? Why couldn't this be managed? What is politically the problem?

Maybe ur right. Israel just needs to welcome the Palestinians with a giant hummus and falafel stand and everything will be gravy. /s

On a more serious note, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Consider traveling to Israel. Then you'll see why so much blood has been shed over it.

On a more serious note, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Consider traveling to Israel. Then you'll see why so much blood has been shed over it. — BitconnectCarlos

You should explain why people's rights cannot be exercised. This seems self-evident otherwise it's just the arbitrary exercise of power. I know the common reason most Israeli Jews offer. I want to know yours.

You should explain why people's rights cannot be exercised. — Benkei

What about the Jewish right of return to Bethlehem? Jesus was born there. Or are you only concerned with "justice" for one side?

Where do these rights even come from?

Consider traveling to Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Have you ever traveled to Israel, and did it include a trip to the West Bank?

I was in Israel around 10 years ago and I don't remember the route but I did go to Jerusalem. Very beautiful country.

I've already answered this pages ago and how current Israeli blood has been diluted to such an extent that their claims to other areas in the world would be significantly stronger than to Israel. But even if we would grant the existence of that right then certainly the rights of recently displaced is much stronger.

Edit: moreover I don't recall Jews being prohibited from settling in Palestine.

No international lawyer describes it as a war because these aren't groups within the same country, it's a group in an occupied territory and another group from a country. The occupied territory is not considered a sovereign nation and even the recent recognition doesn't change this, because there's no de facto sovereignty if you do not control your own territory. It doesn't meet the standards for war, which in any case isn't the appropriate definition anymore. — Benkei

Then quote the international lawyer idiot who says so, because that is bullshit. Very whimsical to hold on definitions that don't at all describe the reality, but then naturally we have had the "special military operation" going on in Ukraine for a while. (Not a war by Russian lawyers, so evidently your lawyers have to be correct!!!)

Similarly then the Western Sahara War (1975-1991) and the breakdown of the ceasefire since 2020 wouldn't be a war. It too has these problematic specific details which makes it quite special. It's also what could be described as you did "a group in an occupied territory and another group from a country. The occupied territory is not considered a sovereign nation and even the recent recognition doesn't change this, because there's no de facto sovereignty if you do not control your own territory. "

(Trump's US did recognize the Moroccan claim to get Morocco to go with the Abraham accords, btw)

Polisario showing it's equipment on parade, which isn't just your ordinary Toyota pick-ups in the Sahel:


And the conflict is quite often called what it is. But naturally you can disagree...


And coming back to THIS conflict now happening, where obviously Hamas and the IDF have been engaged in a war, what then you make of the fighting that is linked to this conflict? The Houthis have insisted that they are doing their attack because of Palestine and then you have had Israel and Iran exchanging blows, which without "Al Aqsa Flood" wouldn't have likely happened. Yes, naturally everybody in the West avoids the notion of war, Iran and Israel try to avoid it. But if you listen to the Houthis, well...

Hiding behind terms like Putin isn't the way forward here. It's to accept this conflict as it is see reality as how it is. There are two armed sides engaged in a war, which has been actually very conventional urban fighting.

No international lawyer worth his salt talks about war at all anymore due to the abuse of the term during the time of the League of Nations.