without the auctions of their army their home will be at risk
Without Hamas’s recent actions, the home of the Palestinians would be at risk?
I think you gotta recheck your math on that one
And of course the same thing applies, that without the IDF and settlers’ actions in Palestine, there wouldn’t have been an October 7th in the first place.
Simply reverse the picture of what you said you’ll see we are saying the same thing. From Hammas /Palestinians perspective Israel and the settlements are the same and their agenda is to drive away all Palestinians (and to be fair, some of the MKs here say that openly, even before October 7th). From Israel perspective, Hammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter). From both perspective, there is a good drive to join the army in order to protect their loved ones.
This is a militant group, with actual guns and drones or explosive and uniform (that they don’t always wear), not a bunch of kids with sticks. This either an army or a terror organisation.
Hamas’s new charter (2017l is sort of accepting Israel (I don’t recall the exact wording, but something along the lines of “if all/most Palestinians accept it”). But the 1988 (in particular article 7, but also 28) charter was never cancelled and the 2017 was never officially approved
Funny story, I was mistaken for an Israeli patriot today, just because of my accent and what I was wearing. I was reassured, if you like, that the world is not going to ostracise Israel and Israel will keep existing. That was the gist of it anyhow. Of course I have no doubt israel will keep existing, what with all the support of the world’s hegemons. What worries me is that Israel will keep existing in its current form: a fascist, genocidal ethnostate. Describing the only armed resistance against occupation permitted by Israel to take hold, as an ‘army’, creates a false sense of equivalence between Hamas’s militants and the IDF with all its powerful tech. To describe what’s been going on in Gaza for the past 10 months as a war between two armies simply defending their own people is, well stunning, when faced with all the evidence of the IDF’s targeted mass killings of Palestinian civilian lives, as well as their callous disregard for Israeli lives (eg Hannibal directive).
First, as I said before, I’m against the war, against the occupation, and in favor of two states solution (ideally, a democratic one Jewish-palestinian state should exist, but this is not going to happen).
Now, I’m sorry, if you ignore the hostages, and the fact that October 7th happened as an offensive act by Hammas, you are painting only a partial picture.
Hamas had 10m to stop the the offensive by Israel, release the hostages. It was that easy 8 months ago, even 5 month ago. Today, I’m not sure. If you ignore this card in hamas’s hands then you are again, painting a partial picture.
And as I said countless times in this thread, directing our anger at the armed forces, rather than politicians (on both sides) only aggravate the war.
I am angry at the politicians in the US etc for their continued support of the mass slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
I’m also angry at the Israeli head of state and political machine, who controls the IDF. When I say ‘the IDF’ I mean of course the military arm of the state of Israel. The Likud charta explicitly states the aim of one Israel ‘from the sea to the river’ - oh, the irony!
What Hamas has done on Oct 7, even if all stories are to be believed, pales in comparison to what Israel has done to innocent Palestinians - schools, universities, hospitals, aid workers, journalists, etc -before and since. And it was clearly provoked by years of being occupied in an open-air prison. So I’m sorry if I’m not interested in the ‘we’re only defending our own’ shtick.
A two-state solution is only possible if Israel withdraws, stops occupying Palestine and allows it to exercise full sovereignty of its borders, governancet, and defence.
I don’t disagree with any of that… the only part I was taking issue with was saying “there is a level of truth” that the armed forces of both sides are working for safety of both sides.
If the IDF stopped killing innocent people, it would dramatically increase the level of safety in the future for the loved ones of the soldiers. And likewise for Hamas.
I mean obviously having 0 Israeli military isn’t gonna work; I do get what you’re saying. But put it this way; if Hamas had disappeared entirely on October 6th, everyone on all sides would be a hell of a lot safer today.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
The whole concept is bankrupt. An IDF soldier is being fired at from a school because he is on Palestinian land, occupying it by force to maintain the land that was stolen from the Palestinians and facilitate the taking of more.
There are degrees. If he’s sniping schoolchildren, then that will inflame the conflict more and promote more October 7ths. If he’s “only” firing back at the school, so “defending” himself… well, it’s “better” I guess, but if you break in my house in the middle of the night and I attack you, you’re not “defending” yourself even if you limit yourself to fighting with me and not hurting my wife.
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
Their actions don’t seem to have a cost though. Or rather the mechanism of retribution is so indirect and random that I don’t think that Hamas’s counterattacks make all that much difference to their calculus of what they can get away with doing to the Palestinians. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
Like I said, even “killing only militants” leaves Israel in the position of the war criminal. They are invading and stealing homes, farms, anything they can find and pushing the Palestinians into a vanishingly small series of refuges which they then invade in turn. Why would “militants” not fight back in that scenario? What should they do instead?
I do agree with your take on how unrealistic peace is in the present climate. It needs to be imposed from outside by force in order to happen, which won’t happen, because the US would need to be actively involved in making that happen and the US likes things more or less as they are (or at least as they were before the counterattack after October 7th got so genocidal that it started causing political issues for leaders in the US).
Without Hamas’s recent actions, the home of the Palestinians would be at risk?
I think you gotta recheck your math on that one
And of course the same thing applies, that without the IDF and settlers’ actions in Palestine, there wouldn’t have been an October 7th in the first place.
Simply reverse the picture of what you said you’ll see we are saying the same thing. From Hammas /Palestinians perspective Israel and the settlements are the same and their agenda is to drive away all Palestinians (and to be fair, some of the MKs here say that openly, even before October 7th). From Israel perspective, Hammas’s declared agenda is to kill Israel/all the Jews (I mean, it is in their charter). From both perspective, there is a good drive to join the army in order to protect their loved ones.
pretty sure it’s no longer in their charter.
Also why do you keep calling it an army. Gaza doesn’t have an army.
This is a militant group, with actual guns and drones or explosive and uniform (that they don’t always wear), not a bunch of kids with sticks. This either an army or a terror organisation.
Hamas’s new charter (2017l is sort of accepting Israel (I don’t recall the exact wording, but something along the lines of “if all/most Palestinians accept it”). But the 1988 (in particular article 7, but also 28) charter was never cancelled and the 2017 was never officially approved
First paragraph: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/leading-hamas-official-says-no-softened-stance-toward-israel-idUSKBN1862O4/
Funny story, I was mistaken for an Israeli patriot today, just because of my accent and what I was wearing. I was reassured, if you like, that the world is not going to ostracise Israel and Israel will keep existing. That was the gist of it anyhow. Of course I have no doubt israel will keep existing, what with all the support of the world’s hegemons. What worries me is that Israel will keep existing in its current form: a fascist, genocidal ethnostate. Describing the only armed resistance against occupation permitted by Israel to take hold, as an ‘army’, creates a false sense of equivalence between Hamas’s militants and the IDF with all its powerful tech. To describe what’s been going on in Gaza for the past 10 months as a war between two armies simply defending their own people is, well stunning, when faced with all the evidence of the IDF’s targeted mass killings of Palestinian civilian lives, as well as their callous disregard for Israeli lives (eg Hannibal directive).
First, as I said before, I’m against the war, against the occupation, and in favor of two states solution (ideally, a democratic one Jewish-palestinian state should exist, but this is not going to happen).
Now, I’m sorry, if you ignore the hostages, and the fact that October 7th happened as an offensive act by Hammas, you are painting only a partial picture.
Hamas had 10m to stop the the offensive by Israel, release the hostages. It was that easy 8 months ago, even 5 month ago. Today, I’m not sure. If you ignore this card in hamas’s hands then you are again, painting a partial picture.
And as I said countless times in this thread, directing our anger at the armed forces, rather than politicians (on both sides) only aggravate the war.
I am angry at the politicians in the US etc for their continued support of the mass slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.
I’m also angry at the Israeli head of state and political machine, who controls the IDF. When I say ‘the IDF’ I mean of course the military arm of the state of Israel. The Likud charta explicitly states the aim of one Israel ‘from the sea to the river’ - oh, the irony!
What Hamas has done on Oct 7, even if all stories are to be believed, pales in comparison to what Israel has done to innocent Palestinians - schools, universities, hospitals, aid workers, journalists, etc -before and since. And it was clearly provoked by years of being occupied in an open-air prison. So I’m sorry if I’m not interested in the ‘we’re only defending our own’ shtick.
A two-state solution is only possible if Israel withdraws, stops occupying Palestine and allows it to exercise full sovereignty of its borders, governancet, and defence.
So you can quote/point out the specific part where that is? I would love to read it.
I don’t disagree with any of that… the only part I was taking issue with was saying “there is a level of truth” that the armed forces of both sides are working for safety of both sides.
If the IDF stopped killing innocent people, it would dramatically increase the level of safety in the future for the loved ones of the soldiers. And likewise for Hamas.
I mean obviously having 0 Israeli military isn’t gonna work; I do get what you’re saying. But put it this way; if Hamas had disappeared entirely on October 6th, everyone on all sides would be a hell of a lot safer today.
Do you see any scenario where the IDF can allow itself to truly stop Innocent people? A soldier is being fired at from a school, should the soldier allow himself to get killed in such situation?
And vice versa, considering what you know about setlers in Israel, do you really think that they will not get even more violent in the west bank if they know that their actions has no cost?
And don’t get me wrong, I wish for Hamas to vanish, and I wish for the IDF to kill only militants (even that definition is not clear), just like you. But I don’t see any realistic scenario (considering the human spirit) that this can happen. Not in the current political situation.
The whole concept is bankrupt. An IDF soldier is being fired at from a school because he is on Palestinian land, occupying it by force to maintain the land that was stolen from the Palestinians and facilitate the taking of more.
There are degrees. If he’s sniping schoolchildren, then that will inflame the conflict more and promote more October 7ths. If he’s “only” firing back at the school, so “defending” himself… well, it’s “better” I guess, but if you break in my house in the middle of the night and I attack you, you’re not “defending” yourself even if you limit yourself to fighting with me and not hurting my wife.
Their actions don’t seem to have a cost though. Or rather the mechanism of retribution is so indirect and random that I don’t think that Hamas’s counterattacks make all that much difference to their calculus of what they can get away with doing to the Palestinians. I could be wrong, but that’s my impression.
Like I said, even “killing only militants” leaves Israel in the position of the war criminal. They are invading and stealing homes, farms, anything they can find and pushing the Palestinians into a vanishingly small series of refuges which they then invade in turn. Why would “militants” not fight back in that scenario? What should they do instead?
I do agree with your take on how unrealistic peace is in the present climate. It needs to be imposed from outside by force in order to happen, which won’t happen, because the US would need to be actively involved in making that happen and the US likes things more or less as they are (or at least as they were before the counterattack after October 7th got so genocidal that it started causing political issues for leaders in the US).