#Hamas today released further 13 hostages, most of which are children, including two 4 years old.
While some hail Hamas for apparently being the most merciful and humanitarian hostage-taker in the world, let that sink in: you've got adult men and women who take 4 years old kids as hostages...
There is no excuse for this and no one should be praising hamas.
Just as there was no excuse when the IDF used children of a similar age as human shields and got called to international court on war crimes for it (And refused to show)..
In the end anyone taking either side as the good guy is morally corrupt. The hammas are evil, the IDF is evil, full stop.
At this point its not relevant that the Israelis are the worse... they both commit war crimes and terrorism... Debating what murderer and torturer is the nicer one has little interest to me.
But if you insist then yea, the one who started the fight,a nd did so with a mass genocide is very clearly the worse of the two, regardless of what the other side did after being occupied.
If i break into someones house and chain the whole family up in the bathroom and punch them in the face every day, and they respond by kicking me in the balls when they get the chance, I'm still the worse one, I cant be praised for "taking the high oad and not kicking them in the balls" when im the one who came in, took over their home, and locked them into a small bathroom. It doesnt make kicking me in the balls right, but it does clearly make me the wrong one as the theif and initial abuser.
You seem to have a lot of good ideas about the war. So let’s assume you’re Israel, it’s 7 October, you woke up to the barrage of rockets from Gaza and Hamas fighters slaughtering Israeli civilians. What’s you plan?
I would issue a public apology for invading a country that wasnt mine and occupying it for 80 years and commiting genocide, war crimes and terrorism. I would also state that palestine has done the same and neither of us are right. I would then offer a complete withdrawl of Israel from the region, a dissolution of the state under the condition that 1) all hostages are returned 2) all israelis are allowed an appropriate amount of time to leave the country and 3) any israelis that decide to stay who were born on the land be granted citizenship in Palestine and an equal vote.
Once palestine agrees and the hostages released I would dissolve the state and leave.
Now in all reality neither me nor anyone has complete control to decide the situation. So in any practical sense that will never happen, nor am I expecting it to. But youa sked what I would do if i had control and that would be it.
Okay, sounds like a great plan indeed. Plans like this are the main reason why the war is now going on for 80 years, and Hamas continuously wrecks any agreed actual peace plans.
Your response makes absolutely no sense.. If you dissolve the state and leave there is no state to have a war WITH... so no the war didnt continue for 80 years because of ideas like this, that makes no sense.
In my scenario the israelis still own whatever they own and live there. They just are under the government that actually owns the land, palestine. As I said one of the conditions is anyone born ont he land is allowed to stay and given citizenship, this also assumes they retain whatever private land they own so long as they bought it fairly from the palestinian that owned it.
Obviously any infrastructure that exists through theft does not make sense to be allowed to keep.
Not sure why any of that matters.. its their land, they did nothing to deserve loosing it and were simply invaded. So until the occupying force leaves and especially when they are the ones overpowered and forced into ghettos,then there is absolutely no chance for the Israelis to be the good guys.
The whole "but we built up the area after we stole it and killed everyone" is a pretty damn poor excuse for why they should keep it.
Your statement "it's their land" is exclusively based on 1947 as an arbitrary cut-off date. If Palestinians "were invaded" by Jews, then what in your opinion happened to Jerusalem in 1187?
I won't even comment on your postulate that the extremely antisemitic policy of Hamas "doesn't matter", because it's precisely the part that makes your plan so detached from reality.
Your statement “it’s their land” is exclusively based on 1947 as an arbitrary cut-off date.
Not at all, that is not how I determine whose land it is.
I determine whose land it is by who can show the longest multi-generational ties to the land. If you can show you were born on the land and lived there for the last 20 generations its your land… some guy who has some 1000 year old claim to the land he cant show a clear right of ownership to then it isnt his land.
If you can show you are the direct descendant and prove it with paper work of someone 1000 years ago taking your land from you, and you can show specifically what plot of land you owned, then yea, that land should be yours. Virtually no individual jew can do that. In fact most jews are so intermarried they cant even say they have any connection to the jews at all other than it being a religion they practiced for multiple generations. But to connect them as inheretors of land from 1000 years ago, not even remotely close.
Meanwhile the palestinians, most of those show they have lived on that land and have a clear chain of ownership for hundreds of years.
If Palestinians “were invaded” by Jews, then what in your opinion happened to Jerusalem in 1187?
Something that has nothing to do with modern times and no one can even show any heritage connection to those events on either side, soits irrelevant.
I won’t even comment on your postulate that the extremely antisemitic policy of Hamas “doesn’t matter”, because it’s precisely the part that makes your plan so detached from reality.
I am glad you are refusing to comment on something I never said or even remotely implied… smart move.
@freemo@kravietz > If you can show you are the direct descendant and prove it with paper work of someone 1000 years ago taking your land from you, and you can show specifically what plot of land you owned, then yea, that land should be yours. Virtually no individual jew can do that.
Wait a second, hold on. Now, this is secondhand research (I've heard #Destiny mention this on his streams several times and he's pretty well-read on the subject but I don't know his sources well), but isn't that literally the main reason why Palestinians have been having trouble making the case for getting back into the homes they've been displaced from, as they didn't have written deeds?
You wouldnt need a written deed, just proof you were born there and it is multi-generational. Citizenship is based on where you are born, not what you own.
But while citizenship should be automatic ownership of the plot of land might be debatable... IF they can show they were born there and dont have a deed, then someone else would have to prove they had a deed that pre-dated their birth and living in that home. The earlier deed wins, but absense of a physical deed it would default to whoever can show they were born and raised there first (since no owner can otherwise be identified).
@freemo@kravietz I'm thinking that in this context, the Jews who you would argue stole these houses likely created their own deeds to the properties, although I doubt you would treat those with much legitimacy.
As I said in my details, its a matter of precidence.
If someone doesnt have a deed but can show they have lived in a home they were born in... AND the only person who can show a deed shows it after this person was kicked out. AND that deed was not legally signed and transfered from the original owner, then the deed is invalid.
Only way the jews could create a deed to a plot of land and have it be valid in this scenario is if no one can show they had stewardship over the land before them (or explicit ownership).
In other words, if I am born to a plot of land that no one owned, and built a home on it and cared for it, especially across multiple generations, then you would effectively be considered the owner. Only way to invalidate that is to show an owner existed before you.
What does DNA have to do anything. I never said DNA should matter.
A parent can only pass a single item to a single child at a time. Typically if your many generations removed even if one out of a thousand of your ancestors is jewish or cannite or anything else that does not show inheretance rights to a plot of land. And unless you were born there (or if you want to be a bit lax your living parents were born there) you dont have a right to citizenship either.
When I argue palestinians right to the land I never use anctient arguments. I use the fact that these are the people born to the land with multigenerational ties to the land today. That is what gives them the right, not their dna or the bible or any other nonsense.
Well, except the very concept of "land ownership" is a social construct and in the society populating Palestine and Israel nobody cares about how you "determine the ownership" using carefully cherry-picked criteria.
The reason why I mentioned this was to point out that the question of "whose land" can be seen in two semantic spaces, which are largely exclusive:
legal, in which case you need to base your analysis on the international law, which includes all peace agreements signed by Palestine, latest being 1993 Oslo Accord, which makes your proposal of "dissolution of Israel" irrelevant, except for some specific extrajudicial land takeover by settlers
moral, in which case you can go as far back as you wish, but granted complex history of Middle East you loose on each Muslim conquest of Jerusalem (there were many of them) — using the very arguments you raised against "Israeli occupation"! — and you also loose ultimately on the first Muslim siege of Jerusalem simply because Islam appeared 600 years after Christianity and that was several thousands after Jahwe religion
In any case, you can't honestly pick and mix from these semantic systems.
> Virtually no individual jew can do that.
But Palestinians can?
> comment on something I never said or even remotely implied
I pointed out at, if that needs clarification, that no Jews live under Hamas rule, which is kind of obvious, granted their viciously antisemitic stance.
Which makes your whole plan unrealistic as on the hypothetical dissolution of Israel we would immediately witness the largest pogrom in history.
Well, except the very concept of “land ownership” is a social construct and in the society populating Palestine and Israel nobody cares about how you “determine the ownership” using carefully cherry-picked criteria.
Sure its a social construct, but the criteria I picked is more or less the criteria the world uses rather consistently. Plus it makes logical sense. Much more so than your idea of “well 2000 years ago some people who might be remotely related to me were here”
The reason why I mentioned this was to point out that the question of “whose land” can be seen in two semantic spaces, which are largely exclusive:
I;d argue botht he legal and the moral are fairly well addressed by the typical standard I put forth. You are the citizen of the land you are born to. Your ties to the land are based on how many generations of birth that may go back as well.
In any case, you can’t honestly pick and mix from these semantic systems.
I didnt, legally I made clear there had to be a clear chain of ownership and/or presence on the land to claim to be the owner, and whoever can show the earliest form of this wins. And morally the rules are largely the same, whoever is born there, is part of there, that is the natural default.
But Palestinians can?
Yes absolutely. After spending 2 years in the region I can tell you almost every pallestinian, well a lot anyway, have a very proud heritage. In their living room it is common to show a family tree of all the family members born in that house and on that land. They often love to show you their papers and family history and are quite proud to show their ties to the land over many hundreds of years.
Jews on the other hand rarely can show ties to the land, the overwhelming majority can only show ties through an invading force in modern history and can not show a natural connection to the land. You do have some palestinian jews of course who can show ties to the land, but even then it is as a palestinian who is a jew, not as an israelite. Which would give them a right to palestinian citizenship and a home but not an argument for a jewish state.
I pointed out at, if that needs clarification, that no Jews live under Hamas rule, which is kind of obvious, granted their viciously antisemitic stance.
Then a jew has two options… 1) dont stay if you dont like the region, especially if you are the invader .. or 2) stay and change things.
When a country has crime and hates a certain group thats not an excuse to commit genocide and take over. It is an excuse to clean up your society and try to eliminate the hammas to create a unified country for all palestinians, both jewish palestinians and arab.
Which makes your whole plan unrealistic as on the hypothetical dissolution of Israel we would immediately witness the largest pogrom in history.
Not if the jews left, which is what most would and should do… I mean maybe you shouldnt commit genocide on the natives if you dont want to be hated as a people, that would be a nice first place to start.. and now that the hatred is there you can leave, or you can take the risk to try and stay and make things right.. but the risks and the unfortunate nature of that choice has no one to blame but you (the israelis) for committing genocide in the first place.
Its like saying “but if they stop committing genocide then everyone might hate them and be violent towards them”… sure… the answer to that isnt to let them continue to commit genocide.
Sure you can. in fact dying for a cause tends to cause much greater change than surviving it.. we call those martyr.
And yea, people might die, and that is sad.. but they also created the hate towards them directly via their actions.. they killed to make people hate them, so while i dont want to see violence against them I also wont use the fact that they are hated for murder as an excuse to allow them to murder.
When you are responsible for creating hatred, violence, and crime, partly due to the very poverty you intentionally inflict, then there are consequences. Cleaning up crime even in america results in a lot of cops dying, that is just part of the process to fix things, so if you dont want cops dying create a society that has less violence rather than complaining about a society being violent when you are the one who made that happen.
Remember the Hamas didnt exist prior to the israel invasion. Also remember several Israeli terrorists groups arose pre-israel long before the hamas even took shape.
@freemo@kravietz I am honestly somewhat astonished at this take.
> And yea, people might die, and that is sad.. but they also created the hate towards them directly via their actions
> When you are responsible for creating hatred, violence, and crime, partly due to the very poverty you intentionally inflict, then there are consequences.
People supporting genocide against Palestinians could very easily say the same thing.
They can, and they wouldnt be wrong. I have said many times the hamas doing what they did was a stupid move as it generated hate agains tthem and weakened their cause... dont commit war crimes, it makes people hate you... and that hate is not unjustified.
As I've said both sides are wrong and deserve to be hated. One is just more wrong than the other as the invader.
You call it "stupid", they call it compliance with their political program. Faced with such a massive misjudgment on your side, I'm quite curious how you would describe mass killings that would follow the hypothetical dissolution of state of Israel — probably "silly" would be a suitable word?
Also note it wouldn't apply exclusively to Jews. In Gaza #Hamas was killing equally Palestinian supporters of peace with Israel, atheists, gay people and their political opponents from Fatah, women who slept with men before marriage (but not men, it doesn't count as adultery) and a dozen of other categories of Hamas law offenders. I suppose you would happily score all these deaths as "martyrs" and just move on.
> You call it "stupid", they call it compliance with their political program. Faced with such a massive misjudgment on your side, I'm quite curious how you would describe mass killings that would follow the hypothetical dissolution of state of Israel — probably "silly" would be a suitable word?
No not silly, wrong.. but you lie int he bed you make. If you dont want to be killed by the natives then dont try to exterminate the natives for 80 years. While them trying to kill you is wrong, it should be expected as a consequence of your actions. The fact that you were given the choice to leave is quite humane. I'd expect and want most to leave, as well they should since they should have never came as an invading force in the first place.
If i run intop china with a gun and mass murder 1000 people I shouldnt be surprised when a mob tries to kill me in retaliation. Its still wrong, but expected.
Okay, if you want to go this path — what if the deeds ancient Palestinians had were signed by officials who didn't really believe in granting them the ownership of these plots?
As with all law, if something is signed under threat of violence it is invalidated.
So yes if you can show there was a jewish owner to the land first, can prove that owner was forced to transfer the deed, and a person can show a direct chain of inheritance right from that jewish owner, then in that circumstance they would have a right to claim the plot.
@freemo@kravietz > No not silly, wrong.. but you lie int he bed you make.
I think you should be more careful with the logic you're choosing here, this to some extent justifies out-of-proportion responses from #Israel to Palestianian instigations.
It justifies nothing, but it does make it an expected response... there is a huge difference between these two you two seem to be missing.
The world is unfair, when a cop pulls me over I kiss his ass because while morally I should be able to say "fuck you" in practice I expect that will make my life harder. Sure the cop is in the wrong, but doesnt change the fact im spending the night in jail. When i make my choices I must do so being aware of what is likely to happen, not what is justified in happening.
Same here. you murder a population you should expect them to try to murder you. It is wrong, and in an ideal world they wont. But in all reality we know how the world works and we know they will.
@freemo@kravietz The line between "here's the justification" and "well what did you expect" is thin enough for few people to appreciate it, even if it is legitimate.
Regardless of whether or not I agree that #Israel did all of these things you're saying they did, the Palestinians (and more in the Middle East BTW, I have read #OsamaBinLaden's #LetterToAmerica and he agrees with your points in regards to #Palestine and #Israel) believe this to be so and their actions make sense in the context of their understanding of what has happened.
The line is pretty damn thick the two arent even remotely related.
If i jump in the water with weights on im going to drown thats to be expected... no one in their right mind would think because I said that it is "close" to saying "people who swim with weights on deserve to die".
More so when i explain clearly and repeatidly the distinction.
No worry this isnt a misinterpretation i can give a pass on when it is belligerent.
@freemo@kravietz I'm not saying there's no valid difference, but that most people won't care. This is what got #Hasanabi banned from #Twitch, if you recall, as he said that the #USA deserved 9/11 because "we brought it on ourselves".
He was certainly too strong with his words, but he was right that America's interventions in the Middle East created the enemies that caused 9/11. There's a difference between admitting that and justifying the terrorist attacks themselves, but most people just won't care.
If someone wont care about a distinction that they should care about, and intentionally misunderstand me or misinterprit then thats on them, I care very little.
The fact is these two are hugely different things to anyone being honest with themselves. So if you treat them as the same then thats your problem, not mine.
As for 911, no we didnt bring it on ourselves. But we did make it a point to ensure we responded exactly the way the terrorists wanted and literally fell in line and immediately let the terrorists win.
@freemo@kravietz It's not about me not caring about that distinction, but your responses are at times too simplistic to make that distinction clear. Going back to #Hasanabi, I didn't even completely understand the distinction he was making until his uncle #CenkUygur had him on #TYT to explain himself afterwards.
Well thats fair. I do often pick my words carefully and expect people to read my words carefully. Most people dont. But i give people the benefit of the doubt that they can ask or i can clarify and then they will interprit me more how I intend.
So while I do understand the distinction getting lost at first once I was explicit about the distinction then its on you to recognize the mis communication and moving foward be more aware of the distinction I am trying to convey.
I would apply the same rules to the USA yes, but the way you summarized it is not what I suggested for israel. Again no one is required to leave.
If it were to be applied to the USA then the US government would dissolve and the native american government would be the default. All people who choose to stay born on the land would become citizens and all people not born on the land may be allowed to stay at the discretion of the new government.
Since we would all be citizens in the new government we could all vote collectively on how or if we want people not born on the land to be treated and if they will be granted residence or not. It is very likely such a vote (Which would largely be non-natives as natives are a small portion of the population) would allow the immigrants to stay.
In the case of israel the same would happen but since the palestinians are in much greater numbers the vote in the new unified nation would be more fairly split between the two, and thus would have some concern for the jews who remain baked in as a result, since they are a huge portion of the vote.
Right, just as those born in high crime areas can either leave, or stay and risk their lives to try to fix the place... that is your choice and a risk we all take.
The difference is the israelis would have to live with hatred they created and is justified (though not the violent acts that may result)... for other people they are stuck in an area of violence with little to do with anything they did.
No but their parents did, and those parents were very irrespoinsible for invading a country, murdering tons of people and then having a 4 year old child they bring into a war zone they created... IT does not justify the hamas taking those kids, but it absolutely is a consequence of their parents choices that they were well aware of when they made it.
@kravietz@freemo It's so weird to see him continually use the same logic that many are using the justify atrocities against Palestinians to justify atrocities against Israelis
It isnt the same logic and it isnt a justification and I have repeated this several times now.
Saying something is Expected is not the same as saying it is justified. The world is unfair, you should expect LOTS of unjustified things to happy, and many times you can predict (expect) what they are.
No its not "fine" but it is much better... no id apply the exact same rules... but the population difference here would have very different results... With the natives having control the americans that are left would still be te overwhelming majority of the vote since we all would have citizenship still under the rules if we chose to stay.
In israel the vote is more fairly split so the nation would need to find bigger compromises int eh voting booth. But ultimately both groups interests would be more evenly represented there.
OTher way around, jews have voting rights in palestine, and all the land becoems palestine.
A better way to view it though is to say neither government would truly exist anymore and a new government would form that includes both groups with voting rights..
While these may sound like different things they are effectively the same. A government reflects the wishes of its citizens through vote. So by having one voting body the government would become representative of both groups and as such wouldnt really be one or the other anymore.
@freemo@kravietz I mean...this just sounds like a semantics game that does nothing but makes Jews angry TBH. It would be far more reasonable at this point to allow Palestinians to participate in the existing Israeli government than build something new from the ground up.
Making the israelis angry because they are the invaders and therefore lost out on taking over is not something i will loose any sleep over.
The current israeli governmetn has racism baked into its laws... Jews who practice their religion are exempt from conscription, arabs arent. The law explicitly states the state will be made for "jews" it is explicitly an ethnostate. Palestinians specifically have all sorts of things they dont have a right to under their law (for example they have been stripped of any right to a passport unless they renounce their palestinian ties).
Making palestinians participate in a government with explicit rules that show preferential treatment, especially when they are the invaders, makes no sense at all.
Remember they are even trying to make public shows of christianity illegal (they protested the criminalization of christianity for many months before this war)... no the israel state should not be preserved from any measure.
Great, then if we agree on that then palestine should be reformed not Israel. They are the ones being invaded, they were there, they get precedence if you have to pick one.
But that was the point of Palestinian Autonomy Authority enacted in 1993 Oslo Accord.
There is an existing Palestinian government. Except in Gaza it was overthrown by a 2007 armed coup by Hamas who killed hundreds of PAA officials and supporters.
Israel already has Arab members of Knesset, and there's a good dozen of them, from several Arab parties. One of them, Ahmad Tibi, was even an adviser to Arafat.
They had a government long before that. The fact that they were killed off invaded, and abused and the USA made sure to rig the fight by supporting the underdog.. .means they were forced into an accord that has no moral legitimacy.
@freemo@kravietz When was the first Palestinian government established? I'm at early 1918 in my in-depth deep-dive of the history of the conflict, and haven't come across anything indicating a formal Palestinian state as of yet.
The palestinians were largely nomadic people and did not seem to have much interest in establishing governments. They wanted to live on the land and be free, and ffrankly it worked great for them for quite a while.
The palestinian government only needed to organize much later in history once they were already under attack.
Its also irrelevant, what matters is who has citizenship over the land and a say in how its run (people born there).. whether they choose to organize into a government to do so or not means very little.
@kravietz@freemo > Your statement "it's their land" is exclusively based on 1947 as an arbitrary cut-off date. If Palestinians "were invaded" by Jews, then what in your opinion happened to Jerusalem in 1187?
I'm curious as to his response to this one. It's almost impossible to hold to a "muh stolen land" position without cognitive dissonance because nearly all lands that are owned by various nations (except for #Alaska) were taken by conquest.
I'm not seeing many people running around saying "Free #Texas" and claiming we need to give it back to #Mexico.
Generally speaking moral nations that took land through conquest make an attempt to make up for it by giving that land back to the people later in generous qty, with very generous rules and government subsedies.
Look at the native americans, they get automatic citizenship, free movement from reservations to american soil with complete equality legally on american soil. AND are given tons of authority over their land that no other legal framework exists for any other people. So much so our cops cant even arrest people on their land.
Moreover this is veryy= rare. In almost all historic cases when we conquer land the natives of that land are allowed to continue living on it (under a new rule), even in anctient times.
So yea the level of brutalitya nd immorality of Israel to literally wipe the land clean of the natives is a level of evil that is rarely seen, even in history. Native americans are really the only well known example of that and even then as I said we gave up a LOT to try to apologize for that.
Nevermind the fact that for that to happen in modern times is almost unheard of and when it does consistently cuases public outrage, as it is with the invasion of georgia, ukraine, etc.
Ok now you just passed into a territory I cant go... the holocaust happened and the jews were the victim. This does not justify them performing a holocaust on another group, particularly one that isnt the germans. But if we deny the obvious fact the holocaust happened then we have no right to have much of an opinion IMO.
Dear Dr. Freemo: Hamas has committed acts of genocide by attacking Israel and Israel has committed counter attacks which have resulted in acts of genocide. The free democratic countries of the world must come together to hold Hamas and Israel accountable for war crimes and terrorism. U.S.A. and other nations must intervene on humanitarian grounds to stop the bloodshed.
What. How is an act on an occupying force an act of genocide, that makes no sense. It is an act of violence, but nothing they did remotely approached genocide (extermination of a whole people). They literally attacked people who were invading their land with no cause.
It is not even israels attacks in and of themselves that are genocide. Its the act of caralling people off their land into small ghettos, and turning off their water and power (in times of peace) with the intention of killing off the population as a whole that makes it genocide.
Targeted acts of war are horrific in their own right, but are not automatically genocide.
Dear Dr. Freemo: Israel has the legitimate right to defend it's homeland against Hamas, Israel has the right to counter attack Hamas for war crimes committed against the Jewish People there is no disagreement. The National Government of Israel is committing atrocities against the Palestinian People. Palestinians already live in overcrowded conditions at best, Palestinians are being caught in the cross fire between the aggressors Hamas and victims the Jewish People. Ordinary Palestinians have been denied, food, water and basic sanitary conditions due to Hamas viciously attacking the innocent people of Israel. So I am not blaming the average Israeli Citizen for committing war crimes against the Palestinian Citizens.
Everyone knows that in modern times militaries during war campaigns are supposed to try to protect innocent civilians where humanly possible from being injured and killed. IDF knows that Hamas has deliberately blocked Palestinians from escaping and fleeing from war torn areas, as a result many Palestinians have no escape route to seek refuge from being caught in the cross fire of both Hamas and Israel heavy artillery shelling.
The Israel - Hamas War is truly a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. 2 Million Palestinians with no escape from relentless attacks from opposing military armed forces. If this is not an active case of genocide what is?
Dear Dr. Freemo: Israel has the legitimate right to defend it’s homeland against Hamas
If they had a homeland sure, they dont… all they have is someone elses homeland they invaded and squated on.. They do not have a right to defend someone elses homeland as their own that they stole.
, Israel has the right to counter attack Hamas for war crimes committed against the Jewish People there is no disagreement
No not when those jewish people are invaders in someone elses land they dont.
The National Government of Israel is committing atrocities against the Palestinian People.
As an illegitimate government, but yea, they are.
Palestinians already live in overcrowded conditions at best,
Not before the invasion they werent. It was only after israel invaded they took 2/3 of the land murdered most of the people and moved the rest into perminant 80 year long concentration camps with walls. They even continually and intentionally turned off their water and power during times of peace as punishment.
Calling an open-air concentration camp that the israelis created as simply “overcrowded” is an under statement.
Palestinians are being caught in the cross fire between the aggressors Hamas and victims the Jewish People.
You cant call a group of people who literally invaded palestinian home land, people who have no claim of any kind to the land, as not being the aggressor. PAlestine attacked israeli aggressor on their land, land stolen from them. Calling it israels land is dishonest to what happened.
Everyone knows that in modern times militaries during war campaigns are supposed to try to protect innocent civilians where humanly possible from being injured and killed.
Agreed
IDF knows that Hamas has deliberately blocked Palestinians from escaping and fleeing from war torn areas
No we dont, all sources on this have come from ISrael or its allys. Unless something changed I tried really hard to confirm this just a few weeks ago in a puiblic discussion from any neutral source and every source we found at the time explicitly stated they could not confirm this.
Even if it is true, as I’ve said I dont deny the Hamas has commited war crimes, and they are wrong. But I have pointed out for every war crime hamas has commited there is one we can show ISrael commited. Worse yet when israel commits a war crime the death toll is usually 10x higher.
You say they blocked civilians, even if we take that at face value, Israel has cut off water and electricity in peace time to mass-murder entire palestinian populations, and was even called to international court on it for war crimes and refused to show.
So at best you can say they both commit war crimes and as such that isnt an argument for either side.
So this accusation may or may not be true.
The Israel - Hamas War is truly a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. 2 Million Palestinians with no escape from relentless attacks from opposing military armed forces. If this is not an active case of genocide what is?
Literally cutting off large parts of entire countries from water, food, and electricity during peace time… and doing so over an 80 year period.. id say thats far far more of a genocide than a road that was blockaided maybe for nebulous reasons.
Im geneerally against foreign interference. But in this case it seems justified. Especially considering foreign interference is the only reason israel was able to commit their genocide to begin with. If people didnt donate tons of military aide it would have actually been a fair fight and they likely would have lost.
Dear Casey Is Remote: We need the cooperation from free countries around the world to open up diplomatic channels of dialogue in order to get United Nations action. Russia will probably vote against any U.N. intervention, U.S. Has already intervened on behalf of Israel, Russia backs Iran and Iran supplies military weapons to Hamas. It is unlikely that the United Nations will be effective at resolving the Israel - Hamas War.
@freemo@freepeoplesfreepress@kravietz If international law was violated, it should be up to an international governing body to bring down the punishment.
Agreed, which is why the fact that Israel has been called to international court multiple times on war crimes, human rights violations, and terrorism is so damning. More so since they refuse to defend themselves in court.
So in that regard I wish the UN would act.
But they wont because there is no international law, there is no enforcement, they cant act, they arent a government. It is up to the individual countries to choose to act or not when the UN decrees a thing.
I am not sure you did explain it... in fact im rather confused how you can disagree at all.. like they dont even pass laws or decrees, they talk, and then some small set (or large) number of countries may sign a thing.There are no rules on votes needed or anything like that that would even resemble a law. When they vote it is basically "who wants to sign this thing" and sometimes the condition for signing may be a threshold number of votes, but its decided on a per-discussion basis and non-signing countries are never obligated, explicitly so.
Also its very od you support international law and are ont he side of ISrael, one of the biggest violators.
Hell the UN just ordered a ceasefire with 2/3 vote on october 17 due to both sides attackign civilians and ISraels response was to have a tantrum about the UN and then ban any UN representatives from ever entering ISrael.
Not to mention their history of attrocities they refuse to go to court for.
By the way, they already had a ceasefire on 6 October. Guess who broke it 😉 And after the current ceasefire started at 07:00, Hamas fired rockets at Israel at 07:15. So good luck.
Thats highly inaccurate. As someone who was not only living in israel at that time but working closely with a famous top-level israeli general and advisor who deals closely with the conflict I am well informed on the situation, I mean I should be bombs were going off all around me too.
They werent firing at eachother at that moment, shortly after ISrael had initiated an attack where they had retaliated and then stopped.
But two parties not firing on eachother is not the same as a cease fire agreement.
The fact that you think being directly connected and informed by the generals involved, and physically there when it happened equates to "ego" has totally destroyed any chance that I could take you seriously.
Thats some selective memory you had... you asked me what Id do if I was god, and pointed out on several occasions what I'd do as a god is very different than what is practical or a real solution.
But you care more about appearing smart than actually having an honest conversation it seems. No surprise given your last comment.
Now if you actually want to talk abotu breaking a cease fire agreement then you just need to look at the current one. Israel agreed, it was UN forced, and not only did throw a fit and block all UN delegates froim ever entering Israel, they also literally broke the cease fire terms on every term.
they violated Palestinian air space during the cease fire despite the terms
After they got some of their hostages back they refused to release the palestianian prisoners agreed upon
They only allowed 3 out of nearly 100 humanitarian aid convoys into Gaza
Murdered two palestinians in an area they were allowed to be
No you said “If I was israel” not “in control” and in my response I made very clear I was answering as someone who had complete ability to do anythign regardless of if it is practical. In my response to your question (As you can see in that link) says that very disclaimer, as I knew you’d try and cheat like you are now:
My exact words:
Now in all reality neither me nor anyone has complete control to decide the situation. So in any practical sense that will never happen, nor am I expecting it to. But youa sked what I would do if i had control and that would be it.
Look we started out pretty respectful, and both of us are going off the wrong end here.... lets take a step back. I got no issue with you, obviously there was a miscommunication, its not a big deal, now its clarified so regardless of what you wanted me to mean or what you thought I meant we both know what we meant to say now, no big deal.
The practical one is the same one I told casey rollins… If i were in charge of israel the first thing I probably would do is
give back significant land that is more disputed as a apology
invade pallestine completely with the intent of taking over the government. I would however do so with extra care not to kill civilians even if that meant taking a reaasonably higher risk for my troops, again in a gesture
Install a temporary transitional government, perhapse ask the UN to oversee it for neutrality reasons. The intent would be to get democracy in place, and get rid of the hammas population or those who are violent in general. This may take several years
During the transitional government you slowly remove the fences and form formal relationships with palestine
and this is most important, once things have stabalized in a decade (and you promise this upfront) they get full autonomy of bother their land and the land given in #1 (which would transition to them pro rata anyway)
At the end of the process once the radicalized element is removed you promise them a choice, and its completely up to them, a) they can dissolve their country and become full citizens of israel or b) you can continue as your own country and go your own way.
I think #6 is also important because since it was their country first they should get the choice of a one state or two state solution.
But the other points are important to understand that these solutions need to ensure the safety of everyone, so it has to be a process.
Ok, so in parts 2-3 that sounds very much like the hypothetical plan for Gaza reportedly discussed by Israel with Arab countries. That clearly is possible and reasonable way for permanent peace.
Item 1 kind of happened in 2005 during Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and was punished for that by Hamas, but let's assume with UN peacekeeping mission that would work.
Now, the hard part. You postulated this:
> would however do so with extra care not to kill civilians
Sounds great in general, but what exactly that "extra care" would mean in practice, granted Hamas turned Gaza into one huge fortress with military infrastructure embedded into civilian objects, specifically with the intent of maximizing civilian losses during any Israel operation.
Dear Dr. Freemo: You present a feasible plan on it’s face. Israel an Palestine must coexist one way or another. Your plan I believe can be implemented if U.S.A. and other NATO members convince Israel and Palestine that their fighting is futile and will eventually undermine their security within the region. Russia and China ultimately benefit financially and militarily from a weakened middle east.
Dear Dr. Freemo: Sometimes I agree with your final analysis of a subject. Such as when you have a concrete workable plan. I am not inflexible, but I am stubborn at times, I write
what I believe in, so I will not always agree with you. I am not trying to deliberately argue with you, normally I am passionate about what I write and try to be reasonable.
Dear Dr. Freemo: I do not expect the U.N. to fix the problems and bring peace to the middle east, the U.N. is as weak as the League of Nations. I do understand that the Nation of Israel was artificially created. Palestinians should be able to seek, obtain self determination, become a viable independent sovereignty. So I can agree with you on this point. Free Democracies around the world must attempt to get U.N. action, even though I have no faith in the U.N., U.S.A. and other countries must force the issue before the U.N. General Assembly. Not just for political purposes, because we need to state our case before the U.N.. U.N. will then have no choice to make a decision, if you sits idle and will not act, then probably the U.S. and Russia will probably get into a lengthy political conflict in the region.
President Joseph Biden has already publicly made a commitment to support Israel, Biden made the classic mistake of showing your cards to the world.
The UN wont because Israel has intentionally and beligerantly told them to F-off.
The UN has on countless occasions accused israel of war crimes and terrorism and demanded they be heard in the international courts and yet they have refused to do their duty and even show.
What do you want of them to beg until the UN changes side and supports Israel and then all of a sudden be ok with it. If you care about the UN then hold them accountable for the resolutions already decided. Once they man up and go to international court and found innocent maybe then the UN might be willing to hear their side, but until then frankly I dont think they should have a voice. They are a bit like a fugative at this point, when you refuse to go to court for your previous trials you cant expect to have a voice now that they feel their the victim.
President Joseph Biden has already publicly made a commitment to support Israel, Biden made the classic mistake of showing your cards to the world.
Biden supporting the abusive rich white side of a conflict instead of the abused poor brown side is pretty much what everyone expects from him anyway at this point. He didnt need to say it, he is racist enough we all knew what side he would take going in.
Well that just makes you a piece of shit... I have no problem with anti-zionist views but once you make it about race and anti-antisemitism then I want nothing to do with you.
I mean even when the "war" wasnt on like it is now they had power and water turned off inpalestinian territories as punishment... Them commiting war crimes, along with palestine, has always been par for the course
Yea the occupation of Israel as a whole is a war crime. But a country commiting a war crime does not justify violence against non-combatants.
The taking of hostages could be said to be a taking or prisoners, and I think it is fair that if a foreign non-combatant is on your land then you do have a right to arrest them.
The issue with the attack is the abuse and violence executed against them. While you may be justified in arresting a non-citizen on your land you do not have the right to massacre 100s of them. A country commiting a war crime does NOT mean you can mass murder non violent people regardless of if what they are doing is legal or not.
@freemo@kravietz like I said... I'm not offering any justification. Just an explanation. And I wouldn't hold anything against raver bimbos. Just the stupid occupation regime that bribed their families to live in illegal settlements.
The explanation is one Hamas gave.. they said every israeli is a combatant.. which makes no sense unless we consider they all were in the IDF at some point... but thats mental gymnastics.
They murdered civilians, if we are being fair to ourselves even if you support palestine, it was wrong.
@freemo@kravietz yeah. I'm not a fan of Hamas. Even to this day... I still have my suspicions about them for being a subsidiary of the Muslim brotherhood and the fact that they were supported by Israel to take the place of Fatah.
@freemo@kravietz there's quite a few things I see wrong with that
I don't know that Hamas and Russia get along. Remember that the point of Hamas being supported by Israel and the US was to unseat the PLO which was aligned with the Soviet Union.
The west would prefer people didn't pay attention to Ukraine because Ukraine is losing pretty badly and it looks like it's only going to get much worse for winter. It's actually to Russia's benefit that the collective west's failure is on full display.
The assistance the US is sending Israel is in the form of carrier groups which aren't the sort of land based vehicles that Russia would want to peel off the battlefield.
The eastern Mediterranean is close to the black sea which means America are much closer to directly intervening in Ukraine. Not to mention that they're right next to Syria where Russia has it's airbases and friendly ports.
This doesn't really help Russia at all.
I did have an idea who might stand to benefit though. And it pains me to say it... but... China may have had an incentive to provoke this conflict. The reason being that during the G20 summit, Israel unveiled their plans for an economic corridor going from India across the sea to UAE to Saudi Arabia to Jordan to Israel through to Mediterranean and then to Europe. This would be in direct competition with China's Belt and Road Initiative. When Netanyahu showed the IMEC corridor, I thought to myself... "Now China HAS to do something about Israel."
I'd have liked it that China had found a way to destroy Israel. But... this October 7th incident has gone and provoked a predictable brutal overreaction from Israel that has made it that they will probably not be able to normalize relations with their middle-eastern neighbours. Even if the leaders of these middle-eastern countries were willing to overlook the genocide of the Palestinians for a chance to line their pockets, their people would never accept it and they'd likely be violently deposed. Added to that, you have the Houthis in Yemen attacking commercial tankers which casts doubt on the IMEC corridor being a safe trade route. I think it's safe to say that that plan of Israel's is going to have to stay on ice for quite a while.
The only other possibility I can entertain is that Hamas is the real deal and they did this themselves for a good reason. After the IMEC corridor was unveiled, it seemed like they were going to speed up the Abraham Accords so that people could start making money right away. The Abraham Accords would see to it that Israel could get away with grinding down the Palestinians while still enjoying trade and normalized relations with it's neighbours. The Palestinians knew that this would spell their slow death. So instead of dying slowly and quietly, they went out with a bang. They created an amazing kino spectacle with their paragliders and they made it all as messy as possible to provoke an even messier reaction from Israel in such a way that would forever destroy Israel's integration in the region.
It was a last stand worthy of the Spartans at Therompylae. In the same way Leonidas united the Greeks against the Persian empire, Hamas is uniting the Muslim world against Israel. And we've already seen talks between leaders like Assad, MBS and Raisi taking place.
Add comment