Israel v Hamas

[ASCPFC]

i just want to re-visit the human aspect.
There seems to have been no effort whatsoever to seek the release of hostages, apart from threats to HAMAS.

Do we blame the media for lack of reporting ?

Some hostages were killed by friendly fire, others killed by kidnappers.

Around 45,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed. Many more injured. Many living in temporary shelters as winter arrives, with little food or medicine and degrading water and sanitary conditions.

Meanwhile the US-back military offensive continues into Syria, with Israel re-inventing new borders and claiming strategically important Syrian land in the Golan Heights as their own.

Very little news on the terrorist body count, apart from the occasional Commander killed.

The Arab States have been noticeably quiet on comment.

I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu quite saw it panning out this way. Syria being an 'opportunity', is probably going to complicate things in the long run and see many more deaths in the short term. Am really hoping Trump comes with fresh ideas and impetus, because this has the potential to drag a lot more countries in.

Israel were always going to take the Golan Heights. It's one of those strategic, contested places over all of the wars. I can't imagine them wanting to stretch too much into Syria. This is probably a warning - keep out kind of a thing. Stay behind your own fence.

 

[Spiderman]

This thread is beginning to be more about who said which insult to whom.

Can you please stick to topic and discussion thereof.

Thank you!

Please accept my apologies

 

[Stirlingsays]

Israel were always going to take the Golan Heights. It's one of those strategic, contested places over all of the wars. I can't imagine them wanting to stretch too much into Syria. This is probably a warning - keep out kind of a thing. Stay behind your own fence.

Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 six day war. Since 1981 they effectively annexed it into Israel....that's never been recognised by the UN and it's deemed illegal by them.

Militarily it's a no brainer and they would be fools to give it up.

The ethics of it? Well, when it comes to Israel they get to do whatever they want......they have certainly spent a lot of money to ensure that...corruption too. Seemingly the only handbrake on them are liberal Jews in the state department...for example Blinken.

Trump's incoming administration will have Christian Zionists taking his place so effectively even less of a handbrake.....Probably Trump's 'war is bad for business' overall mantra being the only chance for peace.

Personally I think Trump will look to avoid war with Iran and won't approve of state department adventurism aboard but he'll have a hands off approach to whatever Israel do within its own landmass, by that I mean Gaza and the west bank.

He'll cozy up with Saudi (who like him are mainly interested in economic stability).....and the Saudis will probably be like Turkey and face both ways....which would be at least an improvement on Biden administration relations.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Ceasefire deal nearing conclusion.

Gaza-Israel ceasefire talks in final stage, Palestinian negotiator tells BBC

The official outlines a phased plan which would see hostages freed in step with Israeli pullouts.

www.bbc.co.uk

"After months of deadlock, there are new signs that Israel and Hamas could be moving closer to a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal.
A senior Palestinian official involved in the indirect negotiations told the BBC that talks were in a "decisive and final phase".
Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, has also said an agreement is closer than ever."
(BBC 17.12.24)

 

[ASCPFC]

Ceasefire deal nearing conclusion.

Gaza-Israel ceasefire talks in final stage, Palestinian negotiator tells BBC

The official outlines a phased plan which would see hostages freed in step with Israeli pullouts.

www.bbc.co.uk

"After months of deadlock, there are new signs that Israel and Hamas could be moving closer to a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal.
A senior Palestinian official involved in the indirect negotiations told the BBC that talks were in a "decisive and final phase".
Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, has also said an agreement is closer than ever."
(BBC 17.12.24)

In the background, the John Lennon Christmas song plays.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Not,.."just give peace a chance" ? 🙂😍

 

[Penge Eagle]

Yes there have been terror attacks, including suicide bombs during the occupation of Palestine. Innocent Israelis have been killed and that is as horrific as the innocent Palsetinians who have been killed in far larger numbers while being held in a 'prison' by Israel as described by David Cameron.

The obvious question is to ask why Palestine didn't accept those offers. What was objectionable? What were the criticisms of the deals - because reading a little about the 2008 deal, for example, there were several eyebrow raising conditions in that offer including the seeming lack of territorial integrity as one of the conditions was that the IDF would be free to incur across the Palestinian border under the pretence of 'defence' (an all to familiar excuse for invasion as per Syria today, for example) and Israel having access over Palestinian airspace and telecommunications... without, seemingly the same rights extended to the Palestinian state. I can understand why this 'offer' would be unacceptable.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ehud-olmert-s-peace-offer

The 'balance' of the equation (which is what the list was in response to) is that the Israeli regime has killed and maimed far more Palestinians and maimed vastly more than that. That's just the narrow, but important lens of quantifying the situation. How else do we 'balance' the equation qualitatively or otherwise.

The long history of murdering changes little about the intent and actions happening today. It provides useful context to the conflict and for the mutual animosity, but doesn't change the fact of the Israeli regime is committing genocide (see the comments from Smotrich in a previous post, see the Amelek reference from Netenyahu etc).

It is a bit more nuanced than who killed more people, that's a ridiculous (or dare I say lazy and moronic 🙂 ) way to decide an international dispute.

Of course there would be gripes in a very complex negotiation. But Palestine' leader Mahmoud Abbas made no counter offer in 2008 – he simply never showed up for a planned meeting the next day! Why? The extraordinary deal included almost complete Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and Israeli loss of control of Jerusalem’s Old City.

That deal, with some further negotiated compromises, would have meant a peaceful two-state solution with Israel on the same cordial terms as they are with Jordan and Egypt. But Palestinian leaders do not want a two-state solution and never have done. They want the Jews gone and the Palestinian people to continually suffer.

Meanwhile, the conflict gives the international Marxists a grievance opportunity to spout their disgusting ideology in a regional war they have no allegiance to.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Ceasefire deal nearing conclusion.

Gaza-Israel ceasefire talks in final stage, Palestinian negotiator tells BBC

The official outlines a phased plan which would see hostages freed in step with Israeli pullouts.

www.bbc.co.uk

"After months of deadlock, there are new signs that Israel and Hamas could be moving closer to a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal.
A senior Palestinian official involved in the indirect negotiations told the BBC that talks were in a "decisive and final phase".
Israel's defence minister, Israel Katz, has also said an agreement is closer than ever."
(BBC 17.12.24)

Damn right.....it doesn't surprise me at all.

If I were Israel I'd be taking as much of Syria as possible right now......Iran is weak, Russia is occupied, Turkey are fighting the Kurds in the north. It's a golden once in a lifetime opportunity.

Take as much of Syria as possible before you come near the Turks. Even if you later give the land back it would have to come with concessions.

Then no doubt they will get back to the Palestinians.

 

[Badadmcmad]

Nope. For the umpteenth time I only contributed regarding the incidents in Amsterdam, I have no desire to get into a debate about genocide, now if you take that as me being a supporter of it, that’s your problem.
By the way please point out where I have called you a lazy moron? I suspect the post you are referring to is when I wrote “ don’t do yourself down” now what you take from that is up to you but without substantive evidence not sure your accusation is correct and we all know how you insist on substantive evidence.
#279 in reply to my post “it is lazy not to provide references” before calling me the “ perfect case study” . Patronising as well as arrogant, well done!

Thanks for providing the reference. On review, my comments are accurate.

 

[Badadmcmad]

It is a bit more nuanced than who killed more people, that's a ridiculous (or dare I say lazy and moronic 🙂 ) way to decide an international dispute.

I'm listening, describe the nuances that prove the ridiculousness of considering the numbers killed.

I've made references ad nauseam to the the destruction of Palestinian culture, civil infrastratucture etc. That should absolutely be added to the equation. Let's tot up the number of ceasefire agreements broken. The number of negotiators assassinated. The number of representatives assassinated on foreign soil.

What else do you think?

Also, when both sides claim they are victims of genocide, what does it make of the argument made by the likes of Cryrst (and Benny Morris in a debate on Lex Fridman) who argue:

"Not sure if correct and may be just another article but more babies have been born in Gaza than people killed during this war. If Israel are committing genocide then they are not that good at it!" #455

Of course there would be gripes in a very complex negotiation. But Palestine' leader Mahmoud Abbas made no counter offer in 2008 – he simply never showed up for a planned meeting the next day! Why? The extraordinary deal included almost complete Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and Israeli loss of control of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Abbas said in an interview with Israel's Channel 10 television that he rejected the deal because he was not given the chance to study the map that spelled out Olmert's offer.

"He said to me, 'Here's a map. See it? That's all.' I respected his decision not to give me the map," Abbas said. "But how can we sign something that hasn't been given us, that hasn't been discussed?"

Abbas Admits Rejecting Two-State Peace Plan With Israel in 2008

Offer included near-total Israeli withdrawal from West Bank, but Abbas says he didn't get chance to look at map spelling out details

www.voanews.com

If that is a true reflection of reality, then it is moronic to expect a leader to accept a deal without the opportunity to inspect the proposed map to their satisfaction.

The 2008 deal sounds utterly unreasonable. Would you expect Israel to accept those terms if the tables were reversed?

That deal, with some further negotiated compromises, would have meant a peaceful two-state solution with Israel on the same cordial terms as they are with Jordan and Egypt. But Palestinian leaders do not want a two-state solution and never have done. They want the Jews gone and the Palestinian people to continually suffer.

Well, no, not on the same terms as Jordan and Egypt for the reasons explicitly laid out in the offer! Unless my assumption that the IDF has a right to fly in Egyptian and Jordanian airspace and the right to enter those countries in pursuit of 'terrorists'...

The information I've so far seen and has been provided on 2008 seems unserious. A two-state solution is about full autonomy for each state. The 2008 offer would effectively create a policed state on entirely unequal terms.

 

[Spiderman]

Thanks for providing the reference. On review, my comments are accurate.

Shame you didn’t take Becky’s comments on board.

 

[ASCPFC]

Damn right.....it doesn't surprise me at all.

If I were Israel I'd be taking as much of Syria as possible right now......Iran is weak, Russia is occupied, Turkey are fighting the Kurds in the north. It's a golden once in a lifetime opportunity.

Take as much of Syria as possible before you come near the Turks. Even if you later give the land back it would have to come with concessions.

Then no doubt they will get back to the Palestinians.

I was wondering if they might take Syrian territory, place as many Palestinians in it as possible, leave and build up their borders. Then settle as much Palestinian territory with as many heavily armed hard core Zionists as possible.
Not a recipe for any kind of lasting peace and stability in the region but would likely make Israel feel more secure - and appease the hardliners.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I was wondering if they might take Syrian territory, place as many Palestinians in it as possible, leave and build up their borders. Then settle as much Palestinian territory with as many heavily armed hard core Zionists as possible.
Not a recipe for any kind of lasting peace and stability in the region but would likely make Israel feel more secure - and appease the hardliners.

You should be doing consultancy work for Mossad.

You know what mate, nothing would surprise me with the fiddlers.

 

[Penge Eagle]

I'm listening, describe the nuances that prove the ridiculousness of considering the numbers killed.

I've made references ad nauseam to the the destruction of Palestinian culture, civil infrastratucture etc. That should absolutely be added to the equation. Let's tot up the number of ceasefire agreements broken. The number of negotiators assassinated. The number of representatives assassinated on foreign soil.

What else do you think?

Also, when both sides claim they are victims of genocide, what does it make of the argument made by the likes of Cryrst (and Benny Morris in a debate on Lex Fridman) who argue:

"Not sure if correct and may be just another article but more babies have been born in Gaza than people killed during this war. If Israel are committing genocide then they are not that good at it!" #455




Abbas said in an interview with Israel's Channel 10 television that he rejected the deal because he was not given the chance to study the map that spelled out Olmert's offer.

"He said to me, 'Here's a map. See it? That's all.' I respected his decision not to give me the map," Abbas said. "But how can we sign something that hasn't been given us, that hasn't been discussed?"

Abbas Admits Rejecting Two-State Peace Plan With Israel in 2008

Offer included near-total Israeli withdrawal from West Bank, but Abbas says he didn't get chance to look at map spelling out details

www.voanews.com

If that is a true reflection of reality, then it is moronic to expect a leader to accept a deal without the opportunity to inspect the proposed map to their satisfaction.

The 2008 deal sounds utterly unreasonable. Would you expect Israel to accept those terms if the tables were reversed?


Well, no, not on the same terms as Jordan and Egypt for the reasons explicitly laid out in the offer! Unless my assumption that the IDF has a right to fly in Egyptian and Jordanian airspace and the right to enter those countries in pursuit of 'terrorists'...

The information I've so far seen and has been provided on 2008 seems unserious. A two-state solution is about full autonomy for each state. The 2008 offer would effectively create a policed state on entirely unequal terms.

The numbers killed is such a dumb argument. So if Britain in WW2 killed more Germans than the other way round, then that makes them the bad guys?

I saw that Abbas quote and I'm not surprised you fall for that sorry excuse. Are you telling me he was unable to ask to look at the map again? Maybe if he showed up for the next day's meeting perhaps? No deal is ever finalised at first because you counter-offer and negotiate any possible issues. Well that's if you really want a deal...

I didn't say the same terms as Egypt and Jordan because they are peaceful nations. I said they could be on cordial terms and work together. They are no terror threat, so no need to control land and air space for them. Abbas could have accepted the air space issue and it could have been resolved at a point in the future once Israel had confidence in its safety. You seem to forget that many countries would like to destroy Israel, so forgive them for being slightly worried!

"Unreasonable deal" you say... You think that is worse than the situation for Palestinians today? Palestine would have virtually the entire West Bank and be living in peace and prosperity. Just like the Arabs who live in in peace and prosperity do in Israel. Instead they are living in a shithole run by terrorists lining their own pockets and letting its citizens be killed in an unnecessary war that THEY started.

 

[Badadmcmad]

The numbers killed is such a dumb argument.

Firstly, your own argument:

#490 After the biggest massacre of Jews since the holocaust, you would have Israel not respond at all and cave in to the demand of terrorists!

So here you are being hypocritical by using numbers as an argument.

Of course, numbers killed is factor (although I would not for a moment condone any number of dead), especially when determining a genocide (although it is possible under the definition of genocide to commit one without deaths). For instance, killing genuine combatants during combat situations is different to killing innocent civilians. Killing in genuine self defence is difference from killing indiscriminately.

In international law, there are conditions where 'combatants' may not be killed: Hors de combat - Wikipedia

Killing of children is clearly a war crime and clearly a factor in determinations of genocide. As of Oct 24th, 3100 children under the age of 5 have been killed of whom around 710 were infants under the age of 12 months. AT LEAST 3,100 CHILDREN AGED UNDER FIVE KILLED WITH OTHERS AT RISK

Note that these international laws were written post WW2 in order to create standards of warfare to avoid death. Note that another talking point from the Israeli side, and one I'm pretty sure has been used here is that international law doesn't matter. I've certainly heard Benny Morris make such an argument in this discussion:

So if Britain in WW2 killed more Germans than the other way round, then that makes them the bad guys?

To be answered by your own argument:

#507 It is a bit more nuanced than who killed more people, that's a ridiculous (or dare I say lazy and moronic...

Why do you not apply any of what you preach to your ill-thought out hypothetical analogies?

In WW2, Nazis were the antagonist; the occupier and oppressor. The British, the liberator. At that level you could reasonably consider the British to be the 'good guys' and the Germans the 'bad'. But is everything the British did in WW2 'good'? No. You have to look at more specific events and not make lazy subjective generalisations especially when you defend and advocate genocide as you are doing.

Of course there would be gripes in a very complex negotiation. But Palestine' leader Mahmoud Abbas made no counter offer in 2008 – he simply never showed up for a planned meeting the next day! Why? The extraordinary deal included almost complete Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and Israeli loss of control of Jerusalem’s Old City.

Without explanation, your point is merely conjecture and rhetorical innuendo and, ultimately, meaningless.

The line from Olmert: "I told him he’d never get anything like this again from an Israeli leader for 50 years." Suggests that there may have been little point if that offer was the best there was to be had. Frankly, it's a s*** 'offer' for the reasons explained (as well as others). The only evidence I found was the quote about the map. You'd have to look deeper than just the Israeli record to find a more thorough answer.

There is an Al Jazeera article that is light on detail but contains reference to issues over the illegal annexation of Jerusalem and its omission from negotiations as being a red-line: Israel PM casts doubt on 2008 deal

I didn't say the same terms as Egypt and Jordan because they are peaceful nations. I said they could be on cordial terms and work together.

#507 ...a peaceful two-state solution with Israel on the same cordial terms as they are with Jordan and Egypt.

I see. You didn't mean the thing you said exactly. So you didn't mean the bit about the two-state solution? Just that they could 'work together'?...

A two-state solution should be based on self-determination, sovereign control of borders and self-autonomy. Not subjugation and free reign of a foreign country to enter its land. If Israel were serious it would have given the Palestinian state the same freedoms as it was demanding, especially given the terrorist threat of the IDF - examples being all the political assassinations Israel has conducted in Gaza - these are acts of violence for political reasons which is terrorism.

"Unreasonable deal" you say... You think that is worse than the situation for Palestinians today? Palestine would have virtually the entire West Bank and be living in peace and prosperity. Just like the Arabs who live in in peace and prosperity do in Israel. Instead they are living in a shithole run by terrorists lining their own pockets and letting its citizens be killed in an unnecessary war that THEY started.

Why is it worse for Palestinians today?

Given Israel has continued to assassinate its leaders, perpetuated the blockades of sea, land and air, sniped Palestinian children, detaining its citizens without charge?

Is it worse for Palestinians today because Israel has increased its occupation?

Given the undeniable fact of Israel's control over the region, why, under their watch as the occupying force, has the situation got worse for Palestinians and not better?

 

[Penge Eagle]

Firstly, your own argument:



So here you are being hypocritical by using numbers as an argument.

Of course, numbers killed is factor (although I would not for a moment condone any number of dead), especially when determining a genocide (although it is possible under the definition of genocide to commit one without deaths). For instance, killing genuine combatants during combat situations is different to killing innocent civilians. Killing in genuine self defence is difference from killing indiscriminately.

In international law, there are conditions where 'combatants' may not be killed: Hors de combat - Wikipedia

Killing of children is clearly a war crime and clearly a factor in determinations of genocide. As of Oct 24th, 3100 children under the age of 5 have been killed of whom around 710 were infants under the age of 12 months. AT LEAST 3,100 CHILDREN AGED UNDER FIVE KILLED WITH OTHERS AT RISK

Note that these international laws were written post WW2 in order to create standards of warfare to avoid death. Note that another talking point from the Israeli side, and one I'm pretty sure has been used here is that international law doesn't matter. I've certainly heard Benny Morris make such an argument in this discussion:

To be answered by your own argument:



Why do you not apply any of what you preach to your ill-thought out hypothetical analogies?

In WW2, Nazis were the antagonist; the occupier and oppressor. The British, the liberator. At that level you could reasonably consider the British to be the 'good guys' and the Germans the 'bad'. But is everything the British did in WW2 'good'? No. You have to look at more specific events and not make lazy subjective generalisations especially when you defend and advocate genocide as you are doing.



Without explanation, your point is merely conjecture and rhetorical innuendo and, ultimately, meaningless.

The line from Olmert: "I told him he’d never get anything like this again from an Israeli leader for 50 years." Suggests that there may have been little point if that offer was the best there was to be had. Frankly, it's a s*** 'offer' for the reasons explained (as well as others). The only evidence I found was the quote about the map. You'd have to look deeper than just the Israeli record to find a more thorough answer.

There is an Al Jazeera article that is light on detail but contains reference to issues over the illegal annexation of Jerusalem and its omission from negotiations as being a red-line: Israel PM casts doubt on 2008 deal






I see. You didn't mean the thing you said exactly. So you didn't mean the bit about the two-state solution? Just that they could 'work together'?...

A two-state solution should be based on self-determination, sovereign control of borders and self-autonomy. Not subjugation and free reign of a foreign country to enter its land. If Israel were serious it would have given the Palestinian state the same freedoms as it was demanding, especially given the terrorist threat of the IDF - examples being all the political assassinations Israel has conducted in Gaza - these are acts of violence for political reasons which is terrorism.




Why is it worse for Palestinians today?

Given Israel has continued to assassinate its leaders, perpetuated the blockades of sea, land and air, sniped Palestinian children, detaining its citizens without charge?

Is it worse for Palestinians today because Israel has increased its occupation?

Given the undeniable fact of Israel's control over the region, why, under their watch as the occupying force, has the situation got worse for Palestinians and not better?

You put no blame for the Palestinians' plight on Hamas? 🙄

I can't be bothered to repeat myself, but it is war – not genocide. The Palestine population has actually increased!

Repeating again, Hamas has publicly stated they want a genocide of Jews. Hamas are fine to use children as human shields, even admitting it.

Terrorists Hamas governs Palestinians with Sharia law and you are fine to support Islamism. Up till the war, Israel did not occupy Gaza so not sure how they had been occupying more. Arabs are treated very well in Israel.

I will ask you again... Do you think it was right that the state of Israel was created?

 

[Badadmcmad]

You put no blame for the Palestinians' plight on Hamas? 🙄

I can't be bothered to repeat myself, but it is war – not genocide. The Palestine population has actually increased!

Repeating again, Hamas has publicly stated they want a genocide of Jews. Hamas are fine to use children as human shields, even admitting it.

Terrorists Hamas governs Palestinians with Sharia law and you are fine to support Islamism. Up till the war, Israel did not occupy Gaza so not sure how they had been occupying more. Arabs are treated very well in Israel.

I will ask you again... Do you think it was right that the state of Israel was created?

Reversion to lazy, moronic talking points because, as has been established throughout this conversation, that's all you have to try to defend a genocide. You are in denial, I hope it's only because you've been brainwashed by propaganda and that one day you will come to your senses... sadly that is too late for the likely hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are dead and dying.

What goes through your head when you are told of the report of 700+ infants under 12 months old killed? That is just war? Do those children who have never likely conceived of what Hamas is, why it exists, why Israelis barricade their land, terrorise their cities?

You do realise that WW2 was a war and that the holocaust happened at the same time? War and genocide are not mutually exclusive concepts.

But here you are, despite all the evidence presented, here you are still trying to justifying the murder of tens of thousands of children as simply war. Tens of thousands of children murdered by the self proclaimed 'most moral army'. And here you are arguing in favour of the mass murder and starvation of children.

Then you repeat the bullshit over occupation. "[T]he United Nations, international human rights organizations, International Court of Justice, European Union, International Criminal Court, most of the international community and most legal academics and experts regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel"
Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia

I think I'll take the opinion of long established international political/aid/legal agencies over the say-so of someone who would defend and justify the killing of thousands of children and innocents.

Then there is the West Bank where there is no Hamas, but Israeli occupation continues to spread:

"Israeli settlements are Jewish communities built on Palestinian land. Roughly 700,000 Israeli settlers are living in at least 250 settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israeli settlements are illegal under international law as they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population to the area it occupies.

The settler population is growing faster than Israel’s overall population, with about 10 percent of Israel’s 6.8 million Jewish citizens living in these areas. Settlers receive Israeli citizenship and government subsidies that lower their cost of living."

I.e. state funded occupation and displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population.

Ten maps to understand the occupied West Bank

Since 1967, Israel has occupied the West Bank. Here are 10 maps showing how military control affects Palestinian lives.

www.aljazeera.com

'Arabs are treated very well in Israel'. Is a strange argument, almost patronising to Israeli Arabs... almost as if you are saying Israel deserves a sticker for treating its citizens well... until you realise the whole point of having an ethnostate is to achieve dominance and a majority of one ethnicity over the others. It is fundamentally racist. I've explained how it is the Zionist policy and that of the US for unlimited jewish immigration to Israel which is why there are real estate agents trying to sell swathes of Palestinian land and property to Jews around the world and in particular America.

Perhaps you should read about why Israel is an apartheid state. If only someone would provide you a link... but you won't.

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

Israeli authorities must be held accountable for committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, Amnesty International said today in a damning new report. The investigation details how Israel enforces a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it has...

www.amnesty.org

Does Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Rise to the Level of Apartheid?

There can be no way to address or resolve the continuing crisis in Israel and Palestine, even after the current hostilities wane, without diagnosing it correctly.

www.hrw.org

"A former head of the Mossad intelligence agency [Tamir Pardo] has said Israel is imposing a form of apartheid on the Palestinians, joining a growing number of prominent Israelis to compare the occupation of the West Bank to South Africa’s defunct system of racial oppression."

Israel imposing apartheid on Palestinians, says former Mossad chief

Tamir Pardo comments, slammed by ruling Likud party, carry weight because of high regard for intelligence agency in Israel

www.theguardian.com

The evidence is overwhelming. All you have provided is empty rhetorical talking points which are old and long debunked Israeli propaganda.

Stop it. You have been indoctrinated.

 

[cryrst]

Reversion to lazy, moronic talking points because, as has been established throughout this conversation, that's all you have to try to defend a genocide. You are in denial, I hope it's only because you've been brainwashed by propaganda and that one day you will come to your senses... sadly that is too late for the likely hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are dead and dying.

What goes through your head when you are told of the report of 700+ infants under 12 months old killed? That is just war? Do those children who have never likely conceived of what Hamas is, why it exists, why Israelis barricade their land, terrorise their cities?

You do realise that WW2 was a war and that the holocaust happened at the same time? War and genocide are not mutually exclusive concepts.

But here you are, despite all the evidence presented, here you are still trying to justifying the murder of tens of thousands of children as simply war. Tens of thousands of children murdered by the self proclaimed 'most moral army'. And here you are arguing in favour of the mass murder and starvation of children.

Then you repeat the bullshit over occupation. "[T]he United Nations, international human rights organizations, International Court of Justice, European Union, International Criminal Court, most of the international community and most legal academics and experts regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel"
Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia

I think I'll take the opinion of long established international political/aid/legal agencies over the say-so of someone who would defend and justify the killing of thousands of children and innocents.

Then there is the West Bank where there is no Hamas, but Israeli occupation continues to spread:

"Israeli settlements are Jewish communities built on Palestinian land. Roughly 700,000 Israeli settlers are living in at least 250 settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israeli settlements are illegal under international law as they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population to the area it occupies.

The settler population is growing faster than Israel’s overall population, with about 10 percent of Israel’s 6.8 million Jewish citizens living in these areas. Settlers receive Israeli citizenship and government subsidies that lower their cost of living."

I.e. state funded occupation and displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population.

Ten maps to understand the occupied West Bank

Since 1967, Israel has occupied the West Bank. Here are 10 maps showing how military control affects Palestinian lives.

www.aljazeera.com

'Arabs are treated very well in Israel'. Is a strange argument, almost patronising to Israeli Arabs... almost as if you are saying Israel deserves a sticker for treating its citizens well... until you realise the whole point of having an ethnostate is to achieve dominance and a majority of one ethnicity over the others. It is fundamentally racist. I've explained how it is the Zionist policy and that of the US for unlimited jewish immigration to Israel which is why there are real estate agents trying to sell swathes of Palestinian land and property to Jews around the world and in particular America.

Perhaps you should read about why Israel is an apartheid state. If only someone would provide you a link... but you won't.

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

Israeli authorities must be held accountable for committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, Amnesty International said today in a damning new report. The investigation details how Israel enforces a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it has...

www.amnesty.org

Does Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Rise to the Level of Apartheid?

There can be no way to address or resolve the continuing crisis in Israel and Palestine, even after the current hostilities wane, without diagnosing it correctly.

www.hrw.org

"A former head of the Mossad intelligence agency [Tamir Pardo] has said Israel is imposing a form of apartheid on the Palestinians, joining a growing number of prominent Israelis to compare the occupation of the West Bank to South Africa’s defunct system of racial oppression."

Israel imposing apartheid on Palestinians, says former Mossad chief

Tamir Pardo comments, slammed by ruling Likud party, carry weight because of high regard for intelligence agency in Israel

www.theguardian.com

The evidence is overwhelming. All you have provided is empty rhetorical talking points which are old and long debunked Israeli propaganda.

Stop it. You have been indoctrinated.

It’s not genocide

 

[Penge Eagle]

Reversion to lazy, moronic talking points because, as has been established throughout this conversation, that's all you have to try to defend a genocide. You are in denial, I hope it's only because you've been brainwashed by propaganda and that one day you will come to your senses... sadly that is too late for the likely hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are dead and dying.

What goes through your head when you are told of the report of 700+ infants under 12 months old killed? That is just war? Do those children who have never likely conceived of what Hamas is, why it exists, why Israelis barricade their land, terrorise their cities?

You do realise that WW2 was a war and that the holocaust happened at the same time? War and genocide are not mutually exclusive concepts.

But here you are, despite all the evidence presented, here you are still trying to justifying the murder of tens of thousands of children as simply war. Tens of thousands of children murdered by the self proclaimed 'most moral army'. And here you are arguing in favour of the mass murder and starvation of children.

Then you repeat the bullshit over occupation. "[T]he United Nations, international human rights organizations, International Court of Justice, European Union, International Criminal Court, most of the international community and most legal academics and experts regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel"
Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia

I think I'll take the opinion of long established international political/aid/legal agencies over the say-so of someone who would defend and justify the killing of thousands of children and innocents.

Then there is the West Bank where there is no Hamas, but Israeli occupation continues to spread:

"Israeli settlements are Jewish communities built on Palestinian land. Roughly 700,000 Israeli settlers are living in at least 250 settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Israeli settlements are illegal under international law as they violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population to the area it occupies.

The settler population is growing faster than Israel’s overall population, with about 10 percent of Israel’s 6.8 million Jewish citizens living in these areas. Settlers receive Israeli citizenship and government subsidies that lower their cost of living."

I.e. state funded occupation and displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population.

Ten maps to understand the occupied West Bank

Since 1967, Israel has occupied the West Bank. Here are 10 maps showing how military control affects Palestinian lives.

www.aljazeera.com

'Arabs are treated very well in Israel'. Is a strange argument, almost patronising to Israeli Arabs... almost as if you are saying Israel deserves a sticker for treating its citizens well... until you realise the whole point of having an ethnostate is to achieve dominance and a majority of one ethnicity over the others. It is fundamentally racist. I've explained how it is the Zionist policy and that of the US for unlimited jewish immigration to Israel which is why there are real estate agents trying to sell swathes of Palestinian land and property to Jews around the world and in particular America.

Perhaps you should read about why Israel is an apartheid state. If only someone would provide you a link... but you won't.

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity

Israeli authorities must be held accountable for committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, Amnesty International said today in a damning new report. The investigation details how Israel enforces a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it has...

www.amnesty.org

Does Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Rise to the Level of Apartheid?

There can be no way to address or resolve the continuing crisis in Israel and Palestine, even after the current hostilities wane, without diagnosing it correctly.

www.hrw.org

"A former head of the Mossad intelligence agency [Tamir Pardo] has said Israel is imposing a form of apartheid on the Palestinians, joining a growing number of prominent Israelis to compare the occupation of the West Bank to South Africa’s defunct system of racial oppression."

Israel imposing apartheid on Palestinians, says former Mossad chief

Tamir Pardo comments, slammed by ruling Likud party, carry weight because of high regard for intelligence agency in Israel

www.theguardian.com

The evidence is overwhelming. All you have provided is empty rhetorical talking points which are old and long debunked Israeli propaganda.

Stop it. You have been indoctrinated.

Not sure why I'm continuing to engage with somebody who thinks the creation of the state of Israel was a bad idea, but anyway...

At best it's a disputed genocide and the only people who claim it is are known anti-Semites.

Ah, the Hamas propaganda line about "killing the children" which you love to parrot. You really think the IDF are deliberately targeting children in a war? There is no logical benefit for this. It doesn't help that children are sadly killed when Hamas hide soldiers and weapons in schools and hospitals or misfire rockets and kill their own people! We also know that Hamas has inflated the figures as the recent Henry Jackson Society study recently pointed out. Again, how can a population suffer a genocide if the population has gone up? Gaza, Palestine Population 2024

In 2005, every last jew was ripped out of their homes in Gaza. There are no Jews there.

You mention the garbage institution that is the UN, which should be disbanded. Of all the bloodshed and actual genocide occurring in the world, somehow the country with the most resolutions against it is... Israel! Nothing to do with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Non-Aligned Movement blocs who significantly influence resolutions. Then you have the UN aid agency UNRWA that has been providing cover for Hamas... And the same EU that had been bribed by the governments of Qatar, Morocco and Mauritania?

When you say Palestinian land, what year did it become this? How many years were Palestinians settled on said land?

Israel is not an apartheid state and providing links to the likes of Amnesty – who recently had to alter the definition of genocide in order to accuse Israel of it – is not exactly evidence.

Last year thousands of protestors in Gaza appealed for the Hamas government to provide fuel and electricity reliably and stop taking welfare payments from impoverished families. The were violently dispersed and many arrested. Hamas has captured its own citizens (including journalists and activists) as hostages and tortured them, which is a war crime. Women still do not have equal rights and most experience violence from their partners. There are no LGBTQ rights in Gaza... I could go on. I guess the Jews are to blame for all of this?

Israel is the only country in the Middle East with equal rights for all its minorities. Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews, use all the same public services, go to the same universities, are elected to parliament, serve as judges and fight in the Israeli military. None of this would have been possible in the apartheid South Africa.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The language used to explain the Rights of non-Jews in Israel is very carefully worded. To actually appreciate life in Israel as a non-Jew, you really need to experience it.
Going to the A&E department and seeing Jews escorted to the front of the queue, past all the other waiting non-Jews. Housing, the same. Restaurants. Take your pick.
It's all very well proclaiming people have equal rights (on paper). but in practice it's never the case. Jews are given priority over everyone else, and if you don't like it a policeman or IDF member is ready to dish out some punishment. Try reporting that to the police. Do you think it would be investigated, or do you think you'd suffer additional harassment ? That's why complaints are so low.

Why would non-Jews want to join the IDF ?
It's apartheid. Clear as day. I've experienced it.

No doubt I'm an anti-Semite. Or just calling it how it is.