Hamas attacks southern Israel

[Muizer]

So PovG used the wrong tense and nhytgbvfeco2 didn't correct it in responding to the quote. Let's not waste more energy on it.

[PointOfViewGun]

I was just pointing out that 67 aren't borders, and never will be. Next I continued to engage in your hypothetical, and wondered what you think recognising them as borders achieves.

That all is your way of deflecting from standing by your claim that Israel recognizing Palestine harms Israeli citizens.

You failed to answer the other question: surrender what?

Are you unaware of the stated goals of Israel regarding Gaza?

Yeah.

This can only be a bad joke. To say Palestinians receive everything they need is a testament to the distortion of your views regarding this topic.

If you paid any attention, you'd notice the discussion was about the blockade before the war.

We never made that distinction; not that it matters though.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

"Do Palestinians get what they need?" Present tense.

As Muizer said.

That all is your way of deflecting from standing by your claim that Israel recognizing Palestine harms Israeli citizens.

Because I assumed actions tied to such a recognition, and those would harm Israelis. Recognition by itself with nothing attached I suppose doesn't harm Israeli citizens, but I fail to see the point of such statement.

Are you unaware of the stated goals of Israel regarding Gaza?

What was the stated goal of the blockade of Gaza?

This can only be a bad joke. To say Palestinians receive everything they need is a testament to the distortion of your views regarding this topic.

And yet they've been living just fine for about 16 years under the blockade, during which their population grew massively. Clearly they had what they needed.

We never made that distinction; not that it matters though.

We were discussing the blockade that predated the war, and your comparison of it to a siege in order to justify "sallying out to attack the besieging force". Seems pretty clear to me that the discussion is about what was before the war.

[PointOfViewGun]

As Muizer said.

Except I didn't use the wrong tense.

Because I assumed actions tied to such a recognition, and those would harm Israelis. Recognition by itself with nothing attached I suppose doesn't harm Israeli citizens, but I fail to see the point of such statement.

You've spend a bunch of posts on this now and still didn't provide a single argument to back up what you claimed. It was recognition first, then become the borders. Do you not know how it would harm Israeli citizens?

What was the stated goal of the blockade of Gaza?

I asked a yes or no question.

And yet they've been living just fine for about 16 years under the blockade, during which their population grew massively. Clearly they had what they needed.

Just fine? Seriously? There is ignorant argument and then there is this.

We were discussing the blockade that predated the war, and your comparison of it to a siege in order to justify "sallying out to attack the besieging force". Seems pretty clear to me that the discussion is about what was before the war.

We were discussing the blockade in general without the distinction of pre or post October 7.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Except I didn't use the wrong tense.

Ugh.

You've spend a bunch of posts on this now and still didn't provide a single argument to back up what you claimed. It was recognition first, then become the borders. Do you not know how it would harm Israeli citizens?

As I've just stated, recognition by itself, without mention of borders or literally anything else, wouldn't harm Israelis. How many more times will I have to repeat this statement?

I asked a yes or no question.

I'm aware of the stated goals of the blockade, yes. I suspect you're not, because it makes no sense for you to be arguing this considering what the stated goal is.

Just fine? Seriously? There is ignorant argument and then there is this.

And there is also a lack of argument, as is being showcased by you.

We were discussing the blockade in general without the distinction of pre or post October 7.

False.
Muizer replied to Ludicus about the conflict being 75 years long. You replied to him by making an analogy to an army breaking out of the walls to lift a siege, thus equating 7/10 to sallying out to break a siege, meaning the blockade prior to 7/10 was what you're calling a siege. When Muizer next talked specifically about 7/10 and your comparison of it to sallying out, you did not deny the fact, merely provided a definition of a siege.

[PointOfViewGun]

As I've just stated, recognition by itself, without mention of borders or literally anything else, wouldn't harm Israelis. How many more times will I have to repeat this statement?

I also addressed that. In a normal conversation you'd be expected to provide your argument on why such borders would endanger Israeli citizens. Still waiting on that.

I'm aware of the stated goals of the blockade, yes. I suspect you're not, because it makes no sense for you to be arguing this considering what the stated goal is.

Since you're acknowledging that there is a stated goal it matters little what that goal is. You can, however, try to address how that changes what I pointed at.

And there is also a lack of argument, as is being showcased by you.

At the same level as I would find it unnecessary to provide any argument on the sun's existence.

False.
Muizer replied to Ludicus about the conflict being 75 years long. You replied to him by making an analogy to an army breaking out of the walls to lift a siege, thus equating 7/10 to sallying out to break a siege, meaning the blockade prior to 7/10 was what you're calling a siege. When Muizer next talked specifically about 7/10 and your comparison of it to sallying out, you did not deny the fact, merely provided a definition of a siege.

Muizer simply referred to the idea that Israel was sieging Gaza at any point as a hyperbole. That didn't change what I was referring to. You can try to cook up a distinction all you want. Once again, it still does not matter.

[Ludicus]

Schumer, a Jew,said Netanyahu risks making his country a "pariah".



It's hard to deny what we see and hear,isn't it?

[Muizer]

Muizer simply referred to the idea that Israel was sieging Gaza at any point as a hyperbole.

For clarity's sake. If 7/10 is a sally, that implies a siege was in place at that point. So when I called 'siege' a hyperbole, that is the situation I was referring to.

[PointOfViewGun]

For clarity's sake. If 7/10 is a sally, that implies a siege was in place at that point. So when I called 'siege' a hyperbole, that is the situation I was referring to.

Which you have yet to bother to substantiate. You made a claim and you let it fly even when it was challenged. Are you unable to explain why it is a hyperbole to call what Israel has been inflicting on Gaza as a siege?

[Muizer]

As per your own definition, a siege implies a besieger that is trying to break in or force surrender.

[Ludicus]

Trump Says Jews Who Support Democrats 'Hate Israel' and their religion

Trump says that Jews who support Democrats hate Israel and their religion, and that the Democratic Party hates Israel. These antisemitic comments do not favor the international image of the USA.
And not only for these foolishness. Imagine a presidential candidate anywhere in the world saying, as Trump did, that if he is not elected, there will be a bloodbath in his country. I do not remember ever hearing such a thing, at any time, said by anyone.

The New York Times writes, in an article titled "Trump’s Warning of a ‘Blood Bath’ if He Loses," published on March 18: “In a campaign speech in Ohio on Saturday, former President Donald Trump said that if he didn’t get elected, ‘it’s going to be a blood bath for the country.’ His warning was not a prediction. This was a brazen threat: If the election disappoints Mr. Trump and his followers, they will revolt.”

What is impressive is to note that no Republican dares to criticize their supreme leader. Authoritarian, xenophobic, and racist neo/protofascist political parties, admirers of Trump, are proliferating like mushrooms in Europe. In Gaza, Netanyahu knows that he enjoys total impunity and can do whatever he pleases.

No Innocent Civilians in Gaza', Israel President Says.

It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.

We should end the charade-once and for all that this is an Israeli war against Hamas. What it is: an Israeli war against the people of Gaza, and a genocide unfolding under our eyes.
--
Edit,
Borrel is a voice crying in the wilderness . Other western/European leaders are only sincerely shocked/outraged when there are white and blue-eyed victims, even if they are far fewer in number.



"In Gaza we are no longer on the brink of famine, we are in a state of famine, affecting thousands of people. This is unacceptable. Starvation is used as a weapon of war. Israel is provoking famine. This is not a flood, it’s not an earthquake, is entirely man-made. I’m coming from Washington, and I did dare to say, well, yes, Israel is provoking famine.
“Oh, how do you say that? what evidence do you have”?
Come on-what evidence do I have?
Hundreds of trucks are waiting to enter. We send parachutes in a place that is one hour by car from the next airport. Why don’t send it by airport? because they don’t let. This is unacceptable: Starvation is used as a weapon of war? YES. Starvation is used as a weapon of war.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I also addressed that. In a normal conversation you'd be expected to provide your argument on why such borders would endanger Israeli citizens. Still waiting on that.

Do you have a point here? Is this going somewhere?
Such borders would endanger Israel because Tel-Aviv would be visible from beyond the border even to the naked eye. Terrorists would be able to fire into it with any munitions they have. Without a proper deal that includes demilitarization and a disarmament of all terrorists operating in the region, these borders would put the lives of millions at risk. It would have to be part of a comprehensive deal, not some gesture of good will. We tried that with Gaza, it was a disaster. No more unilateral gestures that jeopardize the lives of millions.

Since you're acknowledging that there is a stated goal it matters little what that goal is. You can, however, try to address how that changes what I pointed at.

Lmao. What the goal is is very important, because that's the difference between a siege and a blockade. This was a blockade, not a siege.

At the same level as I would find it unnecessary to provide any argument on the sun's existence.

Much like how I don't need to explain that a region where 20% of the population is obese isn't starving for food.

Muizer simply referred to the idea that Israel was sieging Gaza at any point as a hyperbole. That didn't change what I was referring to. You can try to cook up a distinction all you want. Once again, it still does not matter.

No, he was talking about specifically before 7/10. Obviously 7/10 cannot be a sally against a siege that started after 7/10. Keep digging that hole.

[Ludicus]

CNN’s Clarrissa Ward, another excellent and insightful report. Watch and listen till the end.
The grandmother who wants to lead Israelis back to a Gaza without Palestinians
A brief excerpt.

Weiss: there is very strong support from very prominent, from very wealthy people, wealthy Jews in…
Clarissa: ...in the US?
Weiss…in the US.
Clarissa: can you name any names?
Weiss: No!
Weiss: “The Arabs of Gaza lost the right to be in Gaza…I’m speaking about more than two million Arabs. They will not stay there,” Weiss said. “We Jews will be in Gaza.”
Clarissa: that sounds like ethnic cleansing.

That's what's going to happen.

------


Tariq Kenney-Shawa on X,

Just when you think @nytimes coverage of Gaza couldn’t get worse, they sink to new lows. Now they’re describing famine in Gaza as if it’s an inclement weather projection, rather than a weapon of war deployed by Israel to collectively punish Gaza’s entire population.

"They cover Israel’s deliberate starvation of Palestinian civilians as though it’s a weather report", writes Caitlin Johnstone.

[PointOfViewGun]

As per your own definition, a siege implies a besieger that is trying to break in or force surrender.

Are you saying Israel had no demands from Hamas since the group started to rule Gaza?

Do you have a point here? Is this going somewhere?
Such borders would endanger Israel because Tel-Aviv would be visible from beyond the border even to the naked eye. Terrorists would be able to fire into it with any munitions they have. Without a proper deal that includes demilitarization and a disarmament of all terrorists operating in the region, these borders would put the lives of millions at risk. It would have to be part of a comprehensive deal, not some gesture of good will. We tried that with Gaza, it was a disaster. No more unilateral gestures that jeopardize the lives of millions.

This is hilarious. You challenged the idea of Israel recognizing Palestine back and now asking me what's the point here... 1967 borders do not create the situation you allude to different from today. You're gonna have to provide a more specific reasoning for that claim of yours.

Lmao. What the goal is is very important, because that's the difference between a siege and a blockade. This was a blockade, not a siege.

Do explain then. Try to make it not sound like you're hiding behind a technicality. Do check the definition of those terms while at it so that we can save time.

Much like how I don't need to explain that a region where 20% of the population is obese isn't starving for food.

Ah, whataboutism. A deceptive one at that. Are you saying Israel is providing Gaza with enough food?

No, he was talking about specifically before 7/10. Obviously 7/10 cannot be a sally against a siege that started after 7/10. Keep digging that hole.

You're quite off the mark about that and it requires no more explanation.

[Ludicus]

Obviously 7/10 cannot be a sally against a siege that started after 7/10.

What is happening is a medieval siege of Gaza.

The Planned Starvation Of Gaza
War in Gaza: The shadow of Alexander the Great's siege- Le Monde Diplomatique

For a country apparently founded on the genocide of its people in WW2, with the precious help of British antisemitic elites who wanted to get rid of the Jews, Israel is losing its moral legitimacy every day, and the Palestinians are losing their lives. In Gaza, there are more than 2 million people, surrounded by the Israeli army, unable to flee the bombs, unable to receive water, food, medicine. What they're doing is more than retaliation, it is a political project of destruction, against the entire Palestinian people.
--
Edit,

US resolution on Gaza at UN calls for measures proposed in texts it previously vetoed. Good to hear!
US calls for immediate Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal in draft UN resolution.

The US has consistently argued that the route to a ceasefire has to be through a hostage deal, but the new draft resolution presented on Thursday, seen by the Guardian, is more ambiguous about the linkage. A European diplomat at the UN said the stress on an “immediate” ceasefire and the phrase “towards that end” showed significant movement in the US position.

[irontaino]

What is happening is a medieval siege of Gaza.

The Planned Starvation Of Gaza
War in Gaza: The shadow of Alexander the Great's siege- Le Monde Diplomatique

For a country apparently founded on the genocide of its people in WW2, with the precious help of British antisemitic elites who wanted to get rid of the Jews, Israel is losing its moral legitimacy every day, and the Palestinians are losing their lives. In Gaza, there are more than 2 million people, surrounded by the Israeli army, unable to flee the bombs, unable to receive water, food, medicine. What they're doing is more than retaliation, it is a political project of destruction, against the entire Palestinian people

I remember back in the day, the IDF used to pretend to have a code of conduct that forbade targeting civilians and collective punishment. Guess they can't anymore after this

[Ludicus]

A good step in the right direction, indeed, but… The security council vote is a significant moment

…Biden’s diplomats also surprisingly claim the resolution is non-binding – a judgment not shared by the British, who say it should be implemented immediately. It serves to underline how little the US is in control of events.

-----------

It comes to my mind that "Proudly alone" was the motto of Salazar. Now its Israel "against the world”, Israel-Gaza war: US says it will 'find ways' to warn Israel against Rafah attack despite cancellation of visit – as it happened.

The Israeli minister of national security, Itamar Ben Gabir, in response to the UN security council resolution said:The decision of the UN Security Council proves what has been known since time immemorial - this is an anti-Semitic institution, with an anti-Semitic Secretary General, who is encouraging Hamas towards total victory.

President Biden’s choice, on the other hand, to avoid vetoing the decision on the part of the USA, proves on the other hand that President Biden does not put the victory of Israel and the free world over terrorism at the top of his priorities, but rather his political considerations. Precisely after this decision, we must increase the intensity of the war…

---
Update, 26/3
Israel will no longer approve Unrwa food aid to northern Gaza.
---

Shortly after the US administration abstained from voting on the resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the US Department of State tries to convince the world that Israel is a paragon of virtue…Department Press Briefing - March 25, 2024

“We've had ongoing assessments of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law… We have not found them to be in violation, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or the provision of humanitarian assistance.”

The Times of Israel rejoices, Israel using weapons in line with international law, not blocking Gaza aid"

Let’s this topic die-and with it the subhumans of Gaza. It's much more interesting to talk about the war in Ukraine, the longed-for break up of Russia, and to try to guess when the ICC will finally be able to arrest Putin.

[Laser101]

I remember back in the day, the IDF used to pretend to have a code of conduct that forbade targeting civilians and collective punishment. Guess they can't anymore after this

Do codes of conduct ever mean much in practice? Historically, moral standards in warfare are a luxury usually quickly discarded whenever they become inconvenient.

[Ludicus]

The current Israel-Gaza war is unlike anything that has happened before. Never have so many bombs been dropped, never have so many children been killed, never has an entire population been classified as suffering from acute food insecurity. The UN resolution on Gaza is binding; the issue lies in compelling Israel to comply with it, and the US recognizing its binding nature.
Member states “must accept and implement the decisions of the Security Council. The resolution's wording is unequivocal and strong: it explicitly demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, as well as the release of hostages," writes Hannah Birkenkotter, a professor of International Law in a text published on the German academic debate website Verfassungsblog. (1) "There is no uncertainty in the language: what weight can a demand have if not that of a legal obligation?" questions Birkenkotter.

Nate Evans (Senior Advisor to the US Ambassador to the United Nations) says, "The resolution does not create new obligations under international law, as when the Council imposes mandatory sanctions."
In fact, the text "does not impose mandatory sanctions," simply because these are usually the subject of a subsequent resolution when a member state fails to comply with the initial one. The United States says it is non-binding only in the sense that they will not do anything to enforce its implementation.

Guterres says, "This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable. All Security Council resolutions constitute international law. Therefore, to that extent, they are as binding as international law itself."
The problem is that the implementation of the resolution is a matter of international will, and international will is little to none.
The instruments for enforcing compliance with the resolution are described in the UN Charter, in Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter VII. Article 41 provides for measures that do not involve the use of force, including sanctions or the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 42 provides that the Security Council "may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." (2)


(1,2)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Why Today’s UN Security Council Resolution Demanding an Immediate Ceasefire Is Legally Binding

UN Charter -Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace

--

Edit, just a few hours ago.


Famine is setting in': UN court orders Israel to unblock Gaza

The international court of justice has ordered Israel to allow unimpeded access of food aid into Gaza, where sections of the population are facing imminent starvation, in a significant legal rebuke to Israel’s claim it is not blocking aid deliveries.
The judges, who were unanimous in their decision, said Palestinians in Gaza were facing worsening conditions of life, and famine and starvation were spreading. “The court observes that Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing only a risk of famine … but that famine is setting in,” the judges said.

Israeli officials did not issue a direct response to the ICJ’s order.

----
Anatomy of a Genocide - Report – Advance unedited version (A/HRC/55/73).

Israel’s genocide on the Palestinians in Gaza is an escalatory stage of a longstanding settler colonial process of erasure.

Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza-Gallup

Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November

[Love Mountain]

The current Israel-Gaza war is unlike anything that has happened before. Never have so many bombs been dropped, never have so many children been killed, never has an entire population been classified as suffering from acute food insecurity.

Journalists are ridiculous. Sorry, but I think the people living in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand had it worse when U.S. was mercilessly bombing them for over 10 years.

Not trying to minimize the suffering of Palestinians, but this sort of human misery is really nothing new. Which is sad.