Hamas attacks southern Israel

[PointOfViewGun]

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

It is inconsequential since the two are not mutually exclusive... The war was not caused by Hamas' actions on October 7. You continue to argue as if the war started on that particular day. It didn't.

[Ludicus]

No one will ever hear Israel's apologists say that this war started 75 years ago.
----

On air, Biden walks back his own Rafah 'red line' in real time

The next day, Netanyahu wastes no time showing who is the boss. 'We're not getting off the gas': Netanyahu rejects Biden's

At this moment, a disturbing and unprecedented situation is unfolding: the suppliers of bombs intended for the extermination of the citizens of the Palestinian state are also sending them simultaneously, biscuits and other foodstuffs.

This support is provided in the name of a humanitarianism that, it is said, characterizes Western values, which many believe to be rooted in the tradition of Judeo-Christian culture. The same culture used to justify its actions in Africa by historical figures that we, Europeans, tend to forget: Leopold II of Belgium, Lothar von Throta, and Cecil Rhodes.We are witnessing live a tragedy similar to those played out just over 100 years ago by the figures mentioned.

Just the day before yesterday, I heard on a European television news program the following report: "Russian drone attack killed three children in Ukraine." It was also reported: "Israeli bombings in Gaza cause 112 deaths." Why aren't Palestinian children considered like Ukrainian children? More than 13,000 Palestinian children have died in this war. What if they were Ukrainian children?

Is it really necessary to go to the podcast of the Israeli reference newspaper Haaretz to find a headline like this: "Netanyahu wants the world to accuse Israel of Genocide, Apartheid, and Ethnic Cleansing"? It's a podcast made by Israelis, which, in its editorial, calls on citizens to take to the streets of Tel Aviv to help overthrow Netanyahu and his policy of extinction towards Gaza.

Netanyahu Wants the World to Accuse Israel of Genocide, Apartheid and Etnic Cleansing
Israeli human rights groups accuse country of failing to to abide by ICJ’s Gaza aid ruling.
---
Edit,

So there was a 5% increase from 2013 to 2014?...Also, are you aware that this percentage is higher than among the palestinian population?

It's a decrease, not an increase. Obviously, I've only mentioned the Israeli Jews, nothing else counts.To sum up, there is no basis in reality for saying that "A considerable proportion of its people have been willing to accept a two-state" solution". Nein,never, nyet, nope.
Remember, in Israel, Arabs Are Still Second-class Citizens



You wouldn't expect anything else from an ethno-religious state.

[Muizer]

No one will ever hear Israel's apologists say that this war started 75 years ago.

We're discussing the degrees to which Hamas and Israel are responsible for civilian deaths in Gaza since 7/10. For Hamas' responsibility, all that matters is whether they got the reaction they expected / wanted. No room for debate there: they did.

What Palestinians deserve in the context of a 75 year old conflict (or war if you want to call it, makes no difference to me) is a whole different dimension.

No matter how long you argue that angle, it won't cancel out Hamas' responsibility for there being open warfare in Gaza and the death and destruction this would, even under the best imaginable circumstances, have caused. That is just always going to be there no matter what happened or will happen afterwards. And that's why I'll not side with anyone who does not acknowledge and condemns this (which includes participating in protests alongside Hamas supporters e.g.).

It stands alongside Israel's responsibility for avoidable destruction and loss of life. My impression is that overall Israel's attitude towards civilians can be summed up as "callous" and "not our problem". Regardless of how the fighting was conducted, that's obviously wrong and incorrect for areas that are now under their control and because of it they're losing what credit they might have left in the world.

[PointOfViewGun]

Basically, if a besieged town's fighters try to sally out and the besieging army breaks through the walls, the killing done within the walls happened because the town's fighters sallied out. Amazing logic. Got it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

https://jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-791207

https://jpost.com/business-and-innov...article-789364

While the Biden Admin straddles the Gaza war fence rhetorically, recent unprecedented actions are sure to deal serious damage to the relationship with Israel and the Gulf States by extension. Sanctioning a manufacturer of critical components for the Iron Dome, while expending more effort to aid Islamists in Gaza than he ever did to avenge Americans killed in Gaza or Jordan, might make electoral sense given the widespread sympathy for Hamas among his base. However, one can anticipate drawbacks Biden evidently considers a fair price for boosting his reelection bid at home:

A. Aside from the diplomatic damage, the plan to build a port of any kind in Gaza would involve the largest single military deployment of US boots on the ground anywhere in the region, not just for construction and logistics but to protect the operation itself. This is reminiscent of the relatively massive deployment of US troops to secure Biden’s ill fated Kabul airport evacuation stunt.

B. The odds that no US forces or personnel will be attacked in the process, either by Islamist terrorists or caught in the crossfire of the ongoing war, are nearly zero. The port construction will be a massive soft target and the operation itself has zero strategic value to US interests. This is reminiscent of the preventable murders of a dozen American servicemen in the Kabul airport bombing.

C. The port operation will prolong the war in Gaza, forcing Israel to work around Biden’s expensive photo op while providing Hamas with badly needed time and leverage at the negotiating table.

The only silver lining I could possibly anticipate is that a souring of American relations with Jews and Arabs may leave room for rapprochement with the Turks, but seeing as how the sole purpose of the port fiasco is the November elections, I doubt the Biden Admin has any intention or contingencies in place with broader strategic shifts in mind. Let’s hope a deadly bombing and national humiliation in Kabul and another in Gaza don’t become the bookends of Biden’s first term.

[PointOfViewGun]

https://jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-791207

https://jpost.com/business-and-innov...article-789364

While the Biden Admin straddles the Gaza war fence rhetorically, recent unprecedented actions are sure to deal serious damage to the relationship with Israel and the Gulf States by extension. Sanctioning a manufacturer of critical components for the Iron Dome, while expending more effort to aid Islamists in Gaza than he ever did to avenge Americans killed in Gaza or Jordan, might make electoral sense given the widespread sympathy for Hamas among his base. However, one can anticipate drawbacks Biden evidently considers a fair price for boosting his reelection bid at home:

A. Aside from the diplomatic damage, the plan to build a port of any kind in Gaza would involve the largest single military deployment of US boots on the ground anywhere in the region, not just for construction and logistics but to protect the operation itself. This is reminiscent of the relatively massive deployment of US troops to secure Biden’s ill fated Kabul airport evacuation stunt.

B. The odds that no US forces or personnel will be attacked in the process, either by Islamist terrorists or caught in the crossfire of the ongoing war, are nearly zero. The port construction will be a massive soft target and the operation itself has zero strategic value to US interests. This is reminiscent of the preventable murders of a dozen American servicemen in the Kabul airport bombing.

C. The port operation will prolong the war in Gaza, forcing Israel to work around Biden’s expensive photo op while providing Hamas with badly needed time and leverage at the negotiating table.

The only silver lining I could possibly anticipate is that a souring of American relations with Jews and Arabs may leave room for rapprochement with the Turks, but seeing as how the sole purpose of the port fiasco is the November elections, I doubt the Biden Admin has any intention or contingencies in place with broader strategic shifts in mind. Let’s hope a deadly bombing and national humiliation in Kabul and another in Gaza don’t become the bookends of Biden’s first term.

Are you labelling delivery of food and medical supplies to Gazans as aiding Islamists? in Gaza?

[Ludicus]

Police Will Investigate Pro-Palestine Activists' Defacement Arthur Balfour Portrait at Cambridge.

In an online statement, Palestine Action wrote: “… Britain’s support for the continued colonization of Palestine hasn’t wavered since 1917.”

Few know- or try to forget- that British antisemitism helped build Israel. The British elites were anti-Semitic and wanted the Jews to go elsewhere.1905: As Eastern European Jews Pour In, U.K. Enacts ' 'Aliens Act' .

In 1919, Balfour wrote in his introduction to Nahum Sokolow’s History of Zionism that Zionism would benefit western society by riding it of its troublesome Jewish minorities. According to Balfour, the Zionist movement constituted a:

…serious endeavour to mitigate the age-long miseries created for western civilization by the presence in its midst of a Body which it too long regarded as alien, even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or absorb.

Jewish immigration and the Aliens Act

Savage state-sanctioned anti-Jewish riots aka pogroms, along with poverty made worse by widespread economic and political discrimination, caused over 2.5 million of the 6 million Jewish people living in Eastern European to flee their homes between 1870 and 1914. Most went to Western Europe and America but between 120,000 and 150,000 arrived in Britain. In response, Britain passed a law restricting immigration known as the 1905 Aliens Act. Anxieties about ‘diluting’ the strength of the English population intensified as internal class tensions and rivalry with other European powers for imperial dominance increased in this period. Since it was noted that poor people in Britain - be they ‘indigenous’ or ‘alien’ - were outbreeding and thus increasingly outnumbering the English middle classes, there were calls for more punitive policies against the poor and the foreigner.

A Voice From the Jewish Aliens', 1895 about the Anti-Alien Resolution. Full document.
---

Guess what, the “subhumans” Palestinians are the new Aliens.

Palestinians Are 'Illegal Aliens' in West Bank, Israel Tells Top Court.

Meanwhile in the US, Zinke Introduces Bill to Expel Palestinians from the United States

Given the circumstances, the threats to our immigration system and the history of terrorists abusing refugee, asylum and visa processes all over the world, the requirements in this bill are necessary to keep Americans safe. This bill does exactly that.”

Edit,
Jonathan Glazer calls for end to Gaza attacks at Oscars

Jonathan Glazer, the director of Auschwitz-set film The Zone of Interest, won cheers and applause at the Academy Awards for a speech in which he decried the current conflict in the Middle East.
Glazer – who, like Wilson, is Jewish - continued: “Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people, whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack in Gaza.”

Watch,

[nhytgbvfeco2]

It's a decrease, not an increase.

Ah, I see, you're saying it was 32% in 2013 and then it fell to 37% in 2014. And, as we all know, 37 is less than 32.

Obviously, I've only mentioned the Israeli Jews, nothing else counts.

A very odd statement. Non-Jeiwsh Israelis have equal say.

To sum up, there is no basis in reality for saying that "A considerable proportion of its people have been willing to accept a two-state" solution". Nein,never, nyet, nope.

*Even* if we only look at Israeli Jews, are you saying 37% is not a considerable portion..? Add in Israeli Arabs, who are over 20% of the population and support a two-state solution at about 70%, and you get a majority.
This is in cotrast with palestinians, where there was never majority support for a two-state solution. In fact, their support has always been lower. By a lot. Why is this something you ignore?

Remember, in Israel, Arabs Are Still Second-class Citizens



You wouldn't expect anything else from an ethno-religious state.

Paywall.
Please stop using the anti-semetic rag known as Haaretz. And yes, I'm fully aware it's written by Israeli Jews.
Israel is a secular state, with equal rights for all regardless of religion or ethnicity.

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.

You don't know. Lol. And yet you think Israel should risk the lives of its citizens on an 'i dunno'.

[Muizer]

*Even* if we only look at Israeli Jews, are you saying 37% is not a considerable portion..?

Of course it is, but once labeled as an Israeli apologist, everything I say must be contradicted out of principle.

Basically, if a besieged town's fighters try to sally out and the besieging army breaks through the walls, the killing done within the walls happened because the town's fighters sallied out. Amazing logic. Got it.

That analogy makes no sense, so it is not surprising if any logic built upon it doesn't either.

[PointOfViewGun]

You don't know. Lol. And yet you think Israel should risk the lives of its citizens on an 'i dunno'.

Recognizing Palestine, which recognized Israel over 3 decades ago, does not risk the lives of anyone.

That analogy makes no sense, so it is not surprising if any logic built upon it doesn't either.

What part of it makes no sense?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Recognizing Palestine, which recognized Israel over 3 decades ago, does not risk the lives of anyone.

Withdrawing from territory it claims, does.

Of course it is, but once labeled as an Israeli apologist, everything I say must be contradicted out of principle.

It's just endlessly amusing that 37% is not even worth considering, but 38% in favour of establishing settlements in Gaza is taken as a representation of the entire population. What a difference 1% makes.

[PointOfViewGun]

Withdrawing from territory it claims, does.

Not at all. Recognizing 1967 borders does not change the security situation of Israelis in any way.

[Muizer]

What part of it makes no sense?

The part where Israel was besieging Gaza on the eve of 7/10. It seems you're trying to build a metaphor on top of a hyperbole (siege). Perhaps not surprising you end up with a euphemism ("sally" for the 7/10 raids).

[PointOfViewGun]

The part where Israel was besieging Gaza on the eve of 7/10. It seems you're trying to build a metaphor on top of a hyperbole (siege). Perhaps not surprising you end up with a euphemism ("sally" for the 7/10 raids).

siege

a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Not at all. Recognizing 1967 borders does not change the security situation of Israelis in any way.

1967 wasn't a border, and will never be. 'Recognizing' it would do literally nothing if no further steps are taken.

siege

Surrender what?
Do besieging armies typically provide food, water, medicine, building materials and so on to what they're besieging? Why would it surrender if it's getting what it needs?

[PointOfViewGun]

1967 wasn't a border, and will never be. 'Recognizing' it would do literally nothing if no further steps are taken.

The issue wasn't your opinion on 1967 borders. It was you claiming that Israel recognizing Palestine as state would endanger Israeli citizens. Then you evolved that claim to Israel recognizing what I assumed to be 1967 borders being a danger to Israeli citizens. Now you say it would do nothing. Wanna have an other go at it?

Surrender what?
Do besieging armies typically provide food, water, medicine, building materials and so on to what they're besieging? Why would it surrender if it's getting what it needs?

Under international law they're required to so. So, in modern times, yes they'd typically be expected to provide basic necessities. Do Palestinians get what they need? Not really. So, thats a moot point as well.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

The issue wasn't your opinion on 1967 borders. It was you claiming that Israel recognizing Palestine as state would endanger Israeli citizens. Then you evolved that claim to Israel recognizing what I assumed to be 1967 borders being a danger to Israeli citizens. Now you say it would do nothing. Wanna have an other go at it?

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.

Under international law they're required to so. So, in modern times, yes they'd typically be expected to provide basic necessities.

You failed to answer the other question: surrender what?

Do Palestinians get what they need?

Yeah.

[mishkin]

Yeah.

death, destruction and hunger. that is exactly the meaning of your "Yeah".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I would avoid cynicism or any form of sarcasm when your state is destroying a population. You may have heard of humor as a response to tragedy, this does not refer to making fun of the tragedy to which you are subjecting others.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

death, destruction and hunger. that is exactly the meaning of your "Yeah".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I would avoid cynicism or any form of sarcasm when your state is destroying a population. You may have heard of humor as a response to tragedy, this does not refer to making fun of the tragedy to which you are subjecting others.

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

[mishkin]

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