Hamas attacks southern Israel

[Muizer]

It's not a matter of not knowing Hamas' responsibility. It's a matter of being accurate and impartial about it.

You are taking the liberty to criticize my position without taking any yourself. And no, it is obviously not irrelevant to know that one of the parties that can end the war is one that is quite prepared to martyr its own people. It matters a great deal.

[PointOfViewGun]

You are taking the liberty to criticize my position without taking any yourself.

When you suddenly wonder about me making a statement on it after you fail to stand by your own claims its merely an exercise of deflection which I'm not willing to entertain to your pleasure.

And no, it is obviously not irrelevant to know that one of the parties that can end the war is one that is quite prepared to martyr its own people. It matters a great deal.

Are you talking about Israel? Because Israel can do a lot more to end this war than Hamas can ever imagine. It is also confirmed to be martyring its own civilians as well as Palestinian civilians.

[Muizer]

When you suddenly wonder about me making a statement on it after you fail to stand by your own claims

I could ask what claims I failed to stand by, but I'm probably not going to get an answer to that either.

its merely an exercise of deflection which I'm not willing to entertain to your pleasure.

Then don't do it for me. Or do you really want to wait until someone else actually asks you the question "what is Hamas' responsibility for civilian loss of life in Gaza"?

Israel can do a lot more to end this war than Hamas can ever imagine.

Yes. They have the option to end the war with victory on the battlefield. An option that Hamas never had. Their only chance ever was to buy international pressure using the lives of the people they were supposed to protect as currency.

[Ludicus]

UK patience with Israel wearing thin over Gaza aid Cameron to tell Gantz.
U.S. Aid Airdrops in Gaza: A Diversionary Charade. Analyze Impact, Effectiveness of International Aid Delivery.

International relations theorists who study alliances are well aware of the dynamic in which, in an asymmetrical alliance, the smaller power (the client state) makes decisions that contradict and condition the larger power (the patron state): they call it an alliance trap. The US is currently in an alliance trap. It unconditionally supports an ally, Israel, which it neither controls nor can constrain. The theorists of these alliances say that, in these cases, the will of the great power is only fulfilled when there are material consequences.
It seems to me that Israel's extremist policy is not just against the Biden administration, it is against American interests themselves. If the US doesn't put an end to this tragedy, it will become complicit in it in the eyes of the world.

“Sub-human” children starving to death. Disturbing images



There is no political conditionality, no material sanctions, not even a human rights investigation. It was no use Kamala Harris demanding an immediate ceasefire.

U.S. Support for Israel

…As Joe Biden once said, “Were there not an Israel, the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect [its] interests in the region.”

…As long as the amoral imperatives of realpolitik remain unchallenged, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere will not reflect the American public’s long-standing belief that U.S. international relations should be guided by humanitarian principles.

Why Netanyahu is laughing all the way to the bank

… Of the 89 vetoes the United States has cast in the history of the United Nations Security Council, more than half have been on resolutions criticizing Israel, mostly for its occupation of Palestinian territory and treatment of the Palestinians. The Biden administration has continued this pattern, vetoing multiple resolutions calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. (…) “I know what America is,” Netanyahu once said. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”

[PointOfViewGun]

I could ask what claims I failed to stand by, but I'm probably not going to get an answer to that either.

Your responses often does not bother to address the poınts raised against your arguments. Here. Here. Here. Pretty much every other post of yours go by the same tone. You make an argument or claim something as factual. I address those specifically. You move on to other things without acknowledgment or attempts at rebuttal or simply dance around the point. That gets tiring after a while.

Then don't do it for me. Or do you really want to wait until someone else actually asks you the question "what is Hamas' responsibility for civilian loss of life in Gaza"?

I don't have to do it for anyone. I don't have to defend or criticize anyone. I can, however, point out the falsehoods and inaccuracies in what people state here. You can do the same but to say that we're obligated to state a stance on a particular subject is rather misguided and can only be interpretated as to be a tactic of deflection.

Yes. They have the option to end the war with victory on the battlefield. An option that Hamas never had. Their only chance ever was to buy international pressure using the lives of the people they were supposed to protect as currency.

Immediate victory? Sure, but in the long to medium run it merely created Hamas 2.0 for the next decade at the cost of Israel alienating itself from the international community. Your second point is demonstrably false as well. There was no international pressure when Palestinians were dying at a slower rate every week for the past decades while Israel slowly but steadily crept into Palestinian land as well as doing everything to dismantle the Palestinian state politically.

[Muizer]

Your responses often does not bother to address the poınts raised against your arguments. Here. Here. Here. Pretty much every other post of yours go by the same tone. You make an argument or claim something as factual. I address those specifically. You move on to other things without acknowledgment or attempts at rebuttal or simply dance around the point. That gets tiring after a while.

It seems to me I've rather consistently pointed out what Hamas' responsibility is, but that in response I get neither refutation nor acknowledgement. Instead your arguments are along the line of Israel's responsibilities going farther back or being greater. But that is not a refutation of my arguments, because these things do not cancel each other out. They exist side by side.

I don't have to do it for anyone. I don't have to defend or criticize anyone. I can, however, point out the falsehoods and inaccuracies in what people state here. You can do the same but to say that we're obligated to state a stance on a particular subject is rather misguided and can only be interpretated as to be a tactic of deflection.

This whole discussion has barely been about disputed facts. It's been about intentions and responsibility.

There was no international pressure when Palestinians were dying at a slower rate every week for the past decades

Which is why Hamas provoked this escalation. To up that rate and get the world's attention. They said as much themselves. Rulers with such a cynical attitude towards their own people do not deserve any support, directly or indirectly.

[PointOfViewGun]

It seems to me I've rather consistently pointed out what Hamas' responsibility is, but that in response I get neither refutation nor acknowledgement. Instead your arguments are along the line of Israel's responsibilities going farther back or being greater. But that is not a refutation of my arguments, because these things do not cancel each other out. They exist side by side.
This whole discussion has barely been about disputed facts. It's been about intentions and responsibility.
Which is why Hamas provoked this escalation. To up that rate and get the world's attention. They said as much themselves. Rulers with such a cynical attitude towards their own people do not deserve any support, directly or indirectly.

Yes, you have. I specifically addressed those as well. You're merely trying to project your own approach as if it was mine. This has been one big intellectually dishonest argumentation from you. You did everything to pretty much defend Israel to shift responsibility but only reject when its pointed out.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Are you talking about Israel? Because Israel can do a lot more to end this war than Hamas can ever imagine.

You mean by destroying Hamas? True. But this is the only means Israel has to ending the war. Anything else would lead to a short ceasefire that Hamas would violate whenever it becomes convenient to them.

[Muizer]

You're merely trying to project your own approach as if it was mine.

That pretty much describes how I feel about your responses.

[mishkin]

[Insert spiderman meme]

[PointOfViewGun]

You mean by destroying Hamas? True. But this is the only means Israel has to ending the war. Anything else would lead to a short ceasefire that Hamas would violate whenever it becomes convenient to them.

In a distorted reality, sure, that might be the case. Much of the Palestinians-Israeli conflict is unrelated to Hamas' existence. It's more related to Israel's efforts to deny Palestinians statehood since ultimately, and more and more openly, Israel's desire lies for a state between the river and the sea.

That pretty much describes how I feel about your responses.

All has already been revealed.

[Muizer]

Much of the Palestinians-Israeli conflict is unrelated to Hamas' existence. It's more related to Israel's efforts to deny Palestinians statehood since ultimately, and more and more openly, Israel's desire lies for a state between the river and the sea.

Israel is not a monolithic state. A sizable proportion of its people have been willing to accept a 2 state solution even if the far right and settlers communities are utterly against it. On October 7th, Hamas made a 'grand gesture' that succeeded to unify all of Israel in horror which could not be ignored politically, and forced an invasion of Gaza that even international leaders could hardly object to. Whatever came before, no one can claim Hamas has not now deeply impacted the conflict. And it is an impact that is not explained by the history of the conflict up to that point. That would explain resistance, yes, but not this particularly disastrous course of action.

[PointOfViewGun]

Israel is not a monolithic state. A sizable proportion of its people have been willing to accept a 2 state solution even if the far right and settlers communities are utterly against it. On October 7th, Hamas made a 'grand gesture' that succeeded to unify all of Israel in horror which could not be ignored politically, and forced an invasion of Gaza that even international leaders could hardly object to. Whatever came before, no one can claim Hamas has not now deeply impacted the conflict. And it is an impact that is not explained by the history of the conflict up to that point. That would explain resistance, yes, but not this particularly disastrous course of action.

Another utterly one-sided argumentation. One that is borderline ignorant.

A sizeable proportion of Palestinians wanted a two state solution as well. Sometimes more than the Israelis. The support for such a solution always grew and fell depending on what was happening at the time. Despite Israel's attempts, Palestinians are not a monolithic group either. Hamas' actions deserving a response does not mean Israel gets to level entirety of Gaza which is what you're discreetly trying to excuse here. Gaza is a small patch of land with little to no resources containing over 2 million people, of which most are refugees by Israelis making from other parts of former lands of Palestine, where people face daily violence from above while Israel creeps on West Bank for decades. Then a group from Gaza, who Israel used in separating Gaza and West Bank Palestinian administration, who Israel asked other parties to fund, lashes out against Israel, with even Israel resorting to lying about their actions, lashes out on Israel and you try to argue what's the right course of action for them. Cute.

[Ludicus]

Israel...A sizable proportion of its people have been willing to accept a 2 state solution

In 2014, 37% of the Israeli Jews; in 2013, 32% of the Israeli Jews.
----
Biden said set to make push for demilitarized Palestinian

The plan, Friedman wrote, “would involve some form of US recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

"Some form of recognition of a demilitarized state ", what is that supposed to mean? Netanyahu already said that Israel will turn Gaza in demilitarized zone, I can't tell the difference. Are they also going to demilitarise Israel?

To Save Israel, the US is Destroying the International System It Once Constructed

(…) Even at the ICJ, when the whole world made a case for Palestinian freedom, the U.S. opposed. “The Court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory,” the acting legal adviser for the U.S. State Department, Richard Visek, said on February 21.
Ironically, the U.S. has resorted to these various institutions, including the ICC, of which the U.S. is not even a member, to rationalize its actions in Iraq, in Serbia, in Libya, in Ukraine, and many other areas of conflict.
There will be consequences to all of this, and the coming years shall prove that the crisis in international legitimacy, resulting from the abuse of power, will hardly be rectified with superficial changes and reforms.

Canada, Sweden Restore UNRWA Funds as Report Accuses Israel of Torturing Agency Staff.

The work that UNWRA does cannot be overstated," said Canadian lawmaker Salma Zahid. "It will save lives as we have seen the visuals of children dying of hunger in Gaza. The need for immediate aid is non-negotiable."
On Friday, Reuters reported on an internal UNRWA report that included testimony of employees who said they were tortured by Israeli officers while in detention to make false admissions about involvement in the October 7 attack.

To Save Israel, the US is Destroying the International System It Once Constructed

(…) Even at the ICJ, when the whole world made a case for Palestinian freedom, the U.S. opposed. “The Court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory,” the acting legal adviser for the U.S. State Department, Richard Visek, said on February 21.
Ironically, the U.S. has resorted to these various institutions, including the ICC, of which the U.S. is not even a member, to rationalize its actions in Iraq, in Serbia, in Libya, in Ukraine, and many other areas of conflict.There will be consequences to all of this, and the coming years shall prove that the crisis in international legitimacy, resulting from the abuse of power, will hardly be rectified with superficial changes and reforms.

'Biden Brought the Heat': Our Columnists on n the Best and Worst Moments From the State of the Union- New York Times.

Megan K. Stack:"In his speech, Biden laid out his plans for his proposed Gaza port, a cumbersome project expected to take weeks to build. It is an embarrassing and outrageous admission that, despite America’s outsize role in funding and enabling this war, his administration can’t even cajole Israel into letting enough aid pass by land to starving civilians”.
With more than 30,000 dead, a looming famine and unambiguous protests from within his own party, Biden absolutely owed Americans a more direct explanation for his continued support for the onslaught on Gaza”.

-----
Megan Stack knows that any solution proposed by Biden will require Israel's approval. Let's face it: the Palestinian cause is a permanent embarrassment to the US; the US is, above all, concerned about its strategic interests in the Middle East.While there is a small political faction of the Democratic Party that genuinely cares about the Palestinian cause, the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, including ALL Republicans - as I had the opportunity to observe during the State of the Union address - are absolutely indifferent to the Palestinian cause.
Edit,
Biden, in the State of the Union speech, lied, by stating (perhaps unintentionally due to being misinformed), that the US is the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Gaza, when that is not true. The EU is incomparably the largest provider of humanitarian aid to Palestinians, amounting, for example, to nearly 1.2 billion euros for 2021-2024 under the European Joint Strategy, of which €809.4 million has already been delivered. Biden hypocritically gives arms to Israel and food to Gaza (by air, in ridiculously insufficient quantities). He wants to please both God and the devil. The planned construction of a port to provide humanitarian aid, lasting 2 months, is a distraction maneuver, during an election period.

So, Biden says Israel PM Netanyahu needs 'come to Jesus' ...

I told him, 'Bibi' — and don't repeat this, but [I said] 'You and I are going to have a come to Jesus

Oh dear.

[Muizer]

Hamas' actions deserving a response does not mean Israel gets to level entirety of Gaza which is what you're discreetly trying to excuse here. Gaza is a small patch of land with little to no resources containing over 2 million people, of which most are refugees by Israelis making from other parts of former lands of Palestine, where people face daily violence from above while Israel creeps on West Bank for decades. Then a group from Gaza, who Israel used in separating Gaza and West Bank Palestinian administration, who Israel asked other parties to fund, lashes out against Israel, with even Israel resorting to lying about their actions, lashes out on Israel and you try to argue what's the right course of action for them. Cute.

Much of this I would say to be true as well, with one exception: Hamas is not "a group from Gaza", they are the government of Gaza. That's rather a big difference in terms of the response you can expect.

[PointOfViewGun]

Much of this I would say to be true as well, with one exception: Hamas is not "a group from Gaza", they are the government of Gaza. That's rather a big difference in terms of the response you can expect.

It's not a difference but an inconsequential choice of terminology. Hamas governing Gaza does not mean Israel could destroy almost entirety of Gaza. I'm not sure how it would change any response.

[Ludicus]

Hamas is not "a group from Gaza", they are the government of Gaza.

To the palestinians, they are more than that. Old news, Press Release: Public Opinion Poll No (90)
--
Congratulations to CNN’s Clarissa Ward. Video, interview, 'No single loaf of bread'

Clarissa: "its Israel obligation to make sure that the ordinary citizens of Gaza don’t starve to death, and right now they are starving to death. There is no evidence to support the idea that all of this aid is going to Hamas, not the rest of the population"

Protester:” they should get only the minimum calories required to survive”.

Clarissa: "they a starving to death, they are starving to death!"

Protester: "you know what? if they are starving to death, give the hostages back. No single loaf of bread should go there until our hostages are going back".

Clarissa: "To many people in the world, listening to what you’re saying and what you’re protesting for, its sound like,

a) a contravention of international law

and b) incredibly callous in the face of an epic humanitarian catastrophe, in the face of children starving to death, people can’t understand why anyone in their right mind would advocate for stopping aid".
----
The end of Clarissa’s video shows a little Palestinian child, 3-4, four-year-old (?) crying in agony. Heartbreaking for anyone, but not for the apologists of Israel's racist government.

I would like to add that in Israel, these protesters are not a minority, the sad truth is that the vast majority of Israelis feel the same way, Over 2/3 of Jewish Israelis oppose humanitarian aid to palestinians.

Over two-thirds still oppose humanitarian help “via international bodies that are not linked to Hamas or to UNRWA… A majority of Jewish respondents (68%) oppose the transfer of humanitarian aid even under these conditions,” the survey notes.

How Israel has cut Gaza in two

Today there is north Gaza and south Gaza," IDF spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari told reporters

Obviously, the north will be handed over to Israeli settlers and, later, what's left of Gaza. Netanyahu has just announced the approval of 3,500 illegal settlements in the West Bank.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

In a distorted reality, sure, that might be the case. Much of the Palestinians-Israeli conflict is unrelated to Hamas' existence. It's more related to Israel's efforts to deny Palestinians statehood since ultimately, and more and more openly, Israel's desire lies for a state between the river and the sea.

I want an honest yes or no on the following question: tomorrow a two-state solution is signed between Israel and the PA. Do you think Hamas accepts it and stops the armed conflict?

In 2014, 37% of the Israeli Jews; in 2013, 32% of the Israeli Jews.

So there was a 5% increase from 2013 to 2014?
Nice attempt at data manipulation by presenting them as if it's a downward trend.

Also, are you aware that this percentage is higher than among the palestinian population?
To quote wikipedia:
"In December 2022, support for a two-state solution was 33% among Palestinians, 34% among Israeli Jews"
"At the end of October 2023, the two-state solution had the support of 71.9% of Israeli Arabs and 28.6% of Israeli Jews.^[77] In that same month, according to Gallup, just 24% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution"

[PointOfViewGun]

I want an honest yes or no on the following question: tomorrow a two-state solution is signed between Israel and the PA. Do you think Hamas accepts it and stops the armed conflict?

1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and Israeli settlements in West Bank given to Palestinians? I don't know. Just like I can't say that it would be accepted in Israel in the same fashion. It would likely weaken Hamas immensely. Support for Hamas in Gaza only reaches substantial levels when Israel exerts immense violence on Gaza. It is Israel that keeps them in power in Gaza; whether through begging Qatar to fund them or through strikes they execute on Gaza.

[Muizer]

It's not a difference but an inconsequential choice of terminology.

It's the difference between 7/10 being an act of terrorism vs an act of war. Hardly inconsequential for what was to follow.

Hamas governing Gaza does not mean Israel could destroy almost entirety of Gaza.

You do not have to convince me Israel is responsible for there being more death and destruction than necessary in war, but the fact that there is a war going on at all definitely accounts for most of it.