Yup some kind of interference is likely to happen. The UN will step in to stop/slow things down... later on it will flip into mass genocide ...of Jews, when the UN takes their mask off and we see their true colors of antisemitic rage that was there the entire time. How long this will take I'm not sure, but we are seeing the pieces coming together. America will eventually completely abandon them as well
Hamas engages in armed resistance against an ocupying power. Its mission statement explicitly calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state, making it an independence movement by definition. Whatever other, illiberal inclinations it may have don't cancel out this fact.Originally Posted by Ave
Regarding Hamas' alleged use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, I don't believe that there is very much evidence to back up that claim. In its report on Operation Cast Lead (1), for instance, Amnesty International found no evidence that Hamas kidnaps Palestinian civilians to hide behind during firefights (in spite of Israeli claims to the contrary).
And as far as atrocities go, even if they were using human shields, the use of human shields is thoroughly and cartoonishly dwarfed by Israeli indiscriminate bombing.
I see no evidence that modish antisemitism is widespread within the anti-war movement. But alright, if it's safe to attribute theoretical antisemitic motivations to Israel's critics, we could very logically attribute Islamophobic (and perhaps Christophobic) motives to critics of the Palestinians.Which is not what I said. I said anti semitism is coming back in vogue all over the planet. It's a trend. I wish people would limit themselves to criticizing Israel's policies, but many in the "free palestine" movement go way further than that. Not everyone, but the ones that don't are not rejecting the ones that are anti-semitic from their own movement.
Last edited by xerx; 05-21-2024 at 03:14 AM.
In Jordan, there are at least two million Palestinians (and probably more)
https://minorityrights.org/communities/palestinians-2/
In Lebanon, there is a quarter of a million (my bad, I originally thought that it was a half a million).
https://minorityrights.org/communities/palestinians-3/
In Syria, there are half a million.
https://minorityrights.org/communities/palestinians-4/
So yes, other Arab countries have taken in Palestinian refugees.
Hamas' attack on Oct. 7th attack was the retaliation, as the Palestinian territories are under Israeli military occupation.
Last edited by xerx; 05-21-2024 at 03:54 AM. Reason: reword
I'd like that as well, but I'm no longer confident that a two-state solution is still possible. My initial support for it came entirely from the fact that it has wide international support, which, at one point, made it seem like the path of least resistance towards settling the conflict.
Forgot to reply to this.
I'm not "siding" with Hamas. What I said is that they were willing to accept de facto two state solution.
You're just repeating a statement you've already made, which I then responded to multiple times and you failed to redress... pretty much all arguments have been made at this point. I'm just going to quote the multiple responses I've already written regarding this:
You have definitely sided with Hamas throughout this conversation. You're right now defending their good will, which is in reality non-existent. To claim Hamas is willing to have peace with Israel is a lie. Anyone who lies for Hamas supports them in actual fact.
Imagine that in the middle of WW2 Hltler had offered for his troops to stop rounding up the Jews and sending them to the gas chambers if the Jews were to volunteer to walk themselves into the gas chambers, or at least move toward them... Now imagine someone comes along and starts arguing that Hltler made a peace offer, proving his good intent, and the Jews are being inflexible by not walking themselves toward the gas chambers. This is basically equivalent to your argument for Hamas allegedly "offering a two state solution in good faith". It is deeply dishonest and disgraceful that you are arguing this on behalf of Hamas
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 05-21-2024 at 05:13 PM.
I keep repeating it because it's correct. And I'll repeat it again:
Per their charter and the official statements of its leaders, Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state within its 1967 borders. Hamas' statement is an implicit recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the rest of Mandatory Palestine (in other words, a two state solution) in spite of whatever else Hamas may say or won't say about the existence of Israel.
DogOfDanger, where in international law are states required to recognize each others' right to exist? Also, what does "right to exist" even mean in the context of international relations?
No! I never sided with Hamas; I tried to explain their actions, which are the predictable outcome of Israeli policy. On the one hand, Israel pushes the Palestinians into a corner; and on the other hand, it's alleged that Israel (and Netanyahu, in particular) helped to empower Hamas as part of a divide and rule strategy.
* Articles have appeared that allege Netanyahu's involvement in supporting Hamas' rise to power. As there is a political push (both domestic and international) to get Netanyahu evicted from office, my personal feeling (just a feeling) is that there is much more to the story than Netanyahu's singular masterminding of the situation, but I guess we'll see. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/net...amas-1.7010035
No, it isn't correct - a two-state solution is a proposal to establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel with both states living peacefully together and having security. If a proposal does not recognize Israel as a state it is not a two state solution, a two state solution by definition recognizes two states. This is not even a two state solution "in effect", because it will not lead to any lasting peace, the conflict will occur again because nothing in Hamas's stated intentions will have changed, intentions lead to "defacto" actions which have "defacto" consequences. Heck, by your concept Gaza could be called a state and we would already have a two state solution in effect... a two state solution that doesn't recognize two states and doesn't solve anything, that is some impressive double-talk.
Then you've selectively ignored practically everything Hamas has ever said, and focused just on this little soundbite that they are willing to accept land, then suggested this willingness implies an attitude of peace and tolerance. It does not imply this, that is your (irrational) interpretation of their intent, and Hamas has stated clearly they have no such attitude. Hamas could not possibly make it more clear that they want all the land back.
Per their charter they mock the very notion of peace and will accept nothing short of all land returned to them. You're correct they are willing to accept land donated to them. You are not correct that this is a two state solution. A two state solution is not merely a land donation, stop spreading this ignorant mindless nonsense.
Actually it isn't, because they explicitly stated they do not recognize Israel in the very same statement, and there is absolutely no reason for us to ignore that. When predicting someones behavior it is not best to ignore their statements of intent, that is just a stupid argument. Why should Israel, or anyone, do that...? There is no reason why, it makes no sense to do that.
By accepting a land donation Hamas is not forced to change anything whatsoever about their attitudes or policy, by your logic the very fact Hamas rules over Gaza is already an implicit recognition of the state of Israel, but this is just babbling nonsense, Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel and that will not change at all if Israel gives them some land.
The statement you're referring to appears in Hamas's charter, and this language is defined in there. It's part of the justification they used for declaring Jihad. There are laws that detail when war or preemptive action against a rogue state is justified, and the enemy states statements of intent must be considered in addition to their actions. Hamas declared war and acted upon that. Hamas has made no offer of peace anywhere. They have doubled down on their warlike rhetoric and have mocked the notion of peace. If a nation has warlike intent toward another nation the latter is legally justified in taking preemptive action to protect its citizens. So no, your point flops again.
Honestly, they retroactively edited that statement into their charter - it would not surprise me if they added it in the hopes that some leftist in NATO / the US / the Israeli administration would use this as justification to push for a return to the 1967 borders (such as Ariel Sharon - you know, the imbecile that returned Gaza to the Palestinians, leading to Hamas being elected and creating the current mess. Had that not been done we would not have bodies piling up in the streets like we do today).
If a proposal for giving Hamas land consistent with the 1967 borders went forward without any assurance of peace the result would just be the same thing we've seen in Gaza except on a nationwide scale, it would most likely lead to a giant bloodbath, it's a horrible idea.
Keep trying
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 05-27-2024 at 12:26 PM.
It's a shame about that helicopter crash... let me reiterate.
I said Michael will help...
The mind is restless and difficult to restrain, but it is subdued by practice
-Krishna
The Rafah Massacre which happened yesterday night is just on another level. The Palestinians were literally told to move to the safe zone near the UN in Rafah in Gaza (the only place who is said to be safe) and yet Israel bombed them when they were in TENTS not even in their houses!! They burned them alive! And most of them were women and kiiids!! How can anyone support such a state? I don't get it! There is no other reason except that they are also psychopaths.
There are pictures and videos of beheaded and burned babies everywhere. The actual false claim they said about Hamas in 7th October. Gaslighters psychopaths.
And now Israel actually fired at Egypt for no reason! Probably their next move it to try invading Egypt who knows what these devils are scheming.
It seems to me that the Israelis and Hamas are both engaged in a war of extermination, where the war's objective isn't just an extension of politics, like the ones the US fought in Iraq and Libya for the continued dominance of the US dollar, or for ruling class profits, like the wars the US fought in Afghanistan and Vietnam, but rather is a war to completely erase the enemy from the earth, for all time. Man, woman, child, buildings, books, and memory.
Going forwards, let's see if that assumption fits the facts, as the facts unroll.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 05-28-2024 at 12:29 AM.
I feel like we need a Picard type personality to fly in and say "pack it in, both of you" and then fly away.
ἀταραξία
It's not a war when only one side is burning innocent civilians women and kids alive. That's a genocide.
The brainwash is freaking strong in this forum.
A massacre is an indiscriminate slaughter, a targeted attack on a few tents where Hamas senior officials are located is discriminate and therefor not a massacre. I do think their attack should have been better targeted, but the Israeli government seems to be acknowledging that also.
Let's have some independent journalists help us to cut through the hysteria and nonsense here-
a) They did not bomb the safe zone, they bombed an area close to the safe zone where people had settled... it seems because the directions on where the safe zone actually is were not very clear. This is significant from the standpoint of international law.
b) There are pictures of burnt and blown up children, I have seen no pictures of beheaded children. A bomb usually does not behead a person, it explodes them... if it's at close enough range the entire body will most likely be blown to bits. If they're on the periphery it could just burn them to death. But beheading generally entails sawing off or chopping off someones head with a blade. And part of what makes a beheading like that especially criminal is it's intentional. So this claim there were beheadings really just sounds like a PR statement.
When horrible incidents like these happen, Hamas or people such as yourself rush to capitalize on them by spinning and sensationalizing them to the greatest degree possible.
c) The Israeli government says they're conducting an internal investigation into the matter. Isreal seems to suggest that the strike was not as targeted as it should have been, possibly because the fire spread to nearby tents. This acknowledgement of the tragedy of the situation and commitment to ensure legal standards are maintained makes the Israeli government very different than Hamas.
d) you said most of those killed were women and kids, but there has been no breakdown provided of the numbers of women / kids / men killed here. Which means you just made up this information.
e) The claim that innocent civilians were killed is Hamas's claim.
There are many problems with just believing this claim on its face... firstly, there is no way of validating it. We don't know, for example, if many of the men in these tents were complicit in terrorist activity as well, possibly even informally. It's a tent where two senior Hamas officials were located, so this actually seems likely, but I would not expect Hamas to come out and say: "hey you killed 45 people but 22 of them were actually terrorists so don't worry about it". There's no universe where that's the reporting we get on this incident, though it could very well be the reality.
Secondly, even if these were largely civilians, it would show that Hamas is choosing to hide its senior officials amongst civilians... willingly and intentionally endangering them. Hamas could have established their command posts in tents not populated by civilians, why didn't they? Probably as a deterrent, as they've done in the past. Because they understand Israel is averse to indiscriminately bombing civilians. And so that, if the command post is bombed, they can stir up public hysteria about it. Hamas can use people like you to further their war effort, essentially. Is that what Hamas was doing here...? You don't know, I don't know... but they certainly didn't take the necessary precautions and separate their high command from the civilian population.
Thirdly... it's also possible these "civilians" are the family members and close contacts of senior Hamas terrorists. If this is the case... it's debatable that these are infact "innocent" civilians in many cases. If they are aware of and complicit in the operations of Hamas's high military command they are not innocent. The children are innocent - we don't know the number of children killed - but that is just the real world cost of war. The fact is, as a kid, your parents can make bad decisions and involve you in bad things, and get you killed. For example, there were children in Hltlers bunker in the Nazi occupied cities, and they got bombed to hell by the allies... that's a sad thing but their parents are primarily to blame for that, the allies did not have a real alternative, neither do the Israelis.
f) Neither you nor me know why Israel fired on Egypt, or even if they did fire, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. You conclude there's no explanation, because you are very unaware of your ignorance. We'll have to wait for more information, that's what you should have said.
It is a sad event that warrants some investigation but it's also being sensationalized by Hamas and Hamas's supporters to advance their own agendas.
Carry onward!
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 05-28-2024 at 10:47 AM.
a) Israel has already declared the camp to be a safe zone, that's why Palestenians settled there. But it was a move to gather them there and slaughter them all. This is a fact and you should do more reading. If it wasn't a safe zone, then the devil Netnahyu wont come up and say it was an attack by mistake (which wasn't, they are just playing dumb, spoiled state, they strike and then say it's a mistake, wtf).
b) There are actual pictures and videos of beheaded babies. And to your knowledge, there have been previous videos of beheaded kids even before 26 May! Just the media turned a blind eye to it, like u are doing right now. Here is the link if you want to see a beheaded kid in the Rafah Massacre:
- https://x.com/nstweetfr/status/17951...580978/photo/1
- https://x.com/nstweetfr/status/1795126057311330314
And like even if there are no beheaded babies, burning like 40 or 50 people are alive is barbaric. This is the real terrorism. Not Hamas. And you now trying to justify it is just as barbaric and psychopathic.
c) Oh yeah the Israel is different than Hamas for sure, they are slaughtering innocent civilians like it's a game, with no respect for the international law and it has already broken 65 UN resolutions, Hamas never did that. But i'm sure this won't end well for Israel. Spain, Norway and Ireland have just acknowleged Palestine as a state, the International Criminal Court's prosecutor asks for ARREST WARRANTS against NETANYAHU and Defense Minister GALLANT. And btw this is the reason for the Rafah Massacre.
d) There have been breakdown, you just didn't see it because your media doesn't provide you with the truth and twist it, you need to search for it.
e) There were no Hamas relatives or any stupid assumption you are saying. Those are just speculations of your own to justify Israel Barabaric Massacre of the people of Rafah. In the tent there was only Innocent civilians (most of them babies), are you saying then the babies are members of Hamas? Oh maybe those babies have some superpowers to attack Israel.
SO DAMN DELUSIONAL, and you will always have a delusional reason to justify the barabric attacks and massacres Israel are commiting towards Palestenians.
My reason for posting here is not to convince you, but in case someone who is open minded came across this thread, they will see all the facts and think on their own and not accept their faith of being brainwashed by your delusional media.
According to the independent journalist in the video I posted above this is an area right outside the safe zone. The journalist in the video is clearly not a huge fan of Israel, you can tell by his tone and the title of the video "deeply disturbing images of dead children"... he even makes it clear multiple times that Israel didn't delineate the safe zone well enough. But he's also just reporting the facts. I mean you can just keep repeating it was in the safe zone but your thinking is very hysteria-based and low resolution, I'm trusting the credible journalists who are actually there.
In your case it's a merging of the limited facts available with hysteria-based fantasy filling in the gaps.
It's the poor targeting that's the mistake, and the fact the fire spread to nearby tents... along with the fact the 2 senior Hamas members were, at the time of the attack, in a populated area. Israel really should wait until these senior officials are in less populated areas, or storm the area with ground troops. That's the mistake. His statement in no way means the strike was in the safe zone - we do not need the sloppy thinking of hysterical, juvenile imbeciles such as yourself in this conversation, this just obfuscates things to the point no one can tell what is fact and what isn't
I'm willing to concede a bomb can behead a person. That isn't the typical injury from a bomb blast, but it's possible. I'd also like to say it's completely disgusting the way this person is instrumentally holding up a childs corpse for the camera, I think that person is probably a member of Hamas trying to prove something to the world about Israel. I wouldn't put it past Hamas to actually behead a corpse and hold the body up to the camera like that, but who knows. It's not the kind of injury I would anticipate from a bomb blast but it's not impossible.
Anyway, I don't think it truly matters that the bomb beheaded the kid vs. exploded them to bits, it's horrific either way really. But one thing that's especially horrible about the beheading of Jews on Oct 7 is it was done intentionally with a blade while the people were alive, and beheadings with a blade are often slow processes of chopping / sawing off the head, it's a form of torture and sadistic domination, it's also not collateral damage but completely targeted and intentional, that's really what makes it significant in the Oct 7 case. But I know the concept of collateral damage in war is completely lost on you people... at least when Jews are involved.
Terrorism actually has a legal definition, civilian casualties in a war is simply not terrorism. Terrorism is about intimidation and fear of civilian populations, the goal of a targeted strike against a senior military official is to cripple the enemy command not to intimidate the population. If the goal were to intimidate the population there are better ways of achieving that - like, for starters, not providing them with giant amounts of food and shelter.
No, a barbaric act is one that is excessively cruel and sadistic. Whether we would characterize this incident as such depends on a few factors:
a) what the actual intelligence was and what the intention was. For example, if the missile slightly missed its target or if the fire spread to nearby tents causing the death toll to rise that would be a mistake, possibly a reckless operation, but the excess deaths would not have been intentional, not motivated by cruelty or sadism, and therefor not barbaric.
b) how many of those killed were terrorists or part of a social network complicit in terrorism
c) what the actual breakdown of women / children / men were
d) whether Hamas was using this tent as a command post to conduct military operations (sounds like they were), or whether this was just where they were sleeping along with their families - big difference
e) how important these officials actually were. If we're talking major leaders orchestrating the Hamas resistance and taking them out could bring the war to a close earlier killing them in a denser area would be a worthy tradeoff.
By international law if a military command post is hidden within a civilian populated area it is legal to bomb the command post. It's actually considered to be a violation of the rules of war for military personnel take shelter in densely populated civilian areas.
Spain, Norway and Ireland can take whatever political stance they like - they probably have internal political reasons for the stance they're taking, but the bottom line is Hamas is a terrorist organization and simply not a legitimate government, and the majority of the Western world does not acknowledge Hamas as legitimate. Right now the US administration may be indulging your idiocy due the coming election but it's just words, meanwhile Israel continues its campaign and behind the scenes US leaders remain supportive.
The ICC court in the Netherlands ruling is simply ridiculous and that ruling is being appealed, the Israeli government has simply not committed war crimes - infact the ratio of civilian casualties to enemy combatant casualties in Gaza is the lowest in the history of urban warfare, if you want to claim Netanyahu is a war criminal you need to make urban warfare itself a war crime and indict most of the leaders of the Western world. But urban warfare isn't a war crime, and he simply isn't a war criminal.
The libs have lately begun throwing around this word 'war crime' very casually, labeling expected events in war as war crimes, and pretty much any enemy in war as a war criminal... war crime has an actual legal definition. If you cry wolf too often with this term you dilute its meaning and we end up not having any specially reserved word or concept for serious, legally legitimate war crimes. So this is not something that is wise to do, but unfortunately when masses of idiots get together this is what we get.
By your definition of 'war crime' Obama is a war criminal, and a far bigger one than Netanyahu.
Netanyahus greatest crime is that his political interests are coming into conflict with the Western liberal hivemind leading up to an election.
And where is that breakdown? Please provide it.
Did you by chance get your information from Hamas directly? Ah yes, Hamas, that unbiased source for those who see outside their blinders. People just gotta see through the matrix and realize that the terror group Hamas, whose very survival at this time depends on their PR, is the most unbiased reliable source of information.
And you have absolutely no proof of this, this is just something you assumed to be true and passed off as fact, showing how little credibility you actually have.
Correct, they are speculations, because we do not know. That is the entire point - we do not know. What you just said wasn't speculation, what you just said is ~as a matter of fact~ there were no close relatives of Hamas senior officials in those tents. THAT claim has no basis in known fact, but my claim that we don't know, and that it's possible... is perfectly reasonable.
As we've established already, the attack was not a massacre and probably not barbaric.
45 civilians dead and most of them babies? How many babies can a random sample of the population possibly have? There is no evidence for this claim... the claim on its face is just ridiculous, what was this the baby tent where all the families with babies aggregate to put their babies in, and why...?
This is the kind of sensationalist propagandist nonsense that we do not need. This is not seeking justice - justice does not distort the facts. This kind of crap is actually seeking to promote Hamas's cause.
You've described yourself very well.
Delusion is the idea that Hamas is anything but a brutal terror group.
My argument has stuck with known fact, and where I've speculated I've noted that I'm speculating. You often fill in the gaps with your own fantasies, and pass this off as fact - or have outright made things up in some cases (claiming it was the baby tent or some nonsense). You also have a very myopic viewpoint on the broader Israel-Palestine conflict, and no coherent concept of just war, just a bunch of arm-flailing essentially.
You're not open minded, so what is this false pretense of open mindedness?
The video I posted is just the reporting of some independent journalist currently in Palestine, who even clearly sympathizes with the Palestinians... it's not even being shown by a popular news outlet. Hell the title of the video is "deeply disturbing images of dead children". That is not partisan media, this is just a propagandist slogan you imbeciles now use to describe any information that you don't like. But apparently blindly trusting of information Hamas provides is what it means now to see through the matrix.
Keep trying
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 05-30-2024 at 11:13 AM.
Israelis have supposedly been targeting the ICC for a decade.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ar...=twt_b-gdnnews
They're really looking like the bad guys atm.
ἀταραξία
Man, you are such bottom of the barrel human trash it's unreal.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects
These are people who hide behind children as human shields, get them blown up, then use their beheaded bodies as a PR stunt for the camera to justify their terrorist misdeeds - they declared the war, they wanted it, and to this day they could end it. But these people you support, and yet you want to lecture me about being a good person - very funny. Meanwhile pointing out this despicable act is supposedly some horrible moral offense. No, just in your imagination.
I've never met someone with their own nose is so far up their ass as you. You can't see the light of day.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 05-28-2024 at 02:21 PM.
still smells better than the shit you are constantly writing here.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects
Wishful thinking I'm afraid, 4 in 5 Americans still support Israel over Hamas when asked - https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/...er-hamas-poll/
There is some nuance to it, a good percentage of Americans are concerned for the wellbeing of Palestinian civilians and question the degree of Israels response, but still most do not agree with your views that Isreal are the "real terrorists".
America may be run by lairs but ousting / replacing them with a new set of liars who are far more ignorant and incompetent than the current set, and who have a very deluded sense of justice, would not be progress. But fortunately this hasn't happened.
Palestine supporters are increasing day by day as people are becoming more aware of reality thanks to social media.
Gaza genocide is being recorded and shown in every social media platform. But on the 7th of October there have been no photos, videos, hmm I wonder why
There have been also documents shared that Israel helped Hamas financially for 7th October event. Which means there is something fishy going on...
https://www.semafor.com/article/05/2...er-us-politics
I see a change coming in the near future
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects
I don't accept the trope that recognition would end the conflict. The evidence points in the opposite direction: The Palestinian Authority has already recognized Israel's right to exist (link) with no reciprocation on Israel's part: Israel continues to vote against the recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and Israeli settlement activity continues inside the occupied West Bank. What would end the conflict is for Israel to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories.
In any case, Israel doesn't want to be recognized; it wants to be recognized as a Jewish state. In other words, it wants the Palestinians (and seemingly everyone else) to accept its state ideology -- a demand that goes far beyond the inviolability of territorial sovereignty and treaties of cooperation.
It's an outrageous request that no country is entitled to receive under international law. Recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is like recognizing Iran's right to exist as an Islamic state -- a highly-charged claim that that is open to both contestation and interpretation.
It's a demand that cannot be fulfilled in any face-saving way by any government under occupation, and it's made for that very same reason: Because Israel doesn't want it to be fulfilled / it is satisfied with the status quo vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
It's not a soundbite. The offer of a cold peace would distribute sovereignty via a delineation of borders, and it is more actionable than platitudinous sloganeering about Israel's abstract "right to exist".Then you've selectively ignored practically everything Hamas has ever said, and focused just on this little soundbite that they are willing to accept land, then suggested this willingness implies an attitude of peace and tolerance. It does not imply this, that is your (irrational) interpretation of their intent, and Hamas has stated clearly they have no such attitude. Hamas could not possibly make it more clear that they want all the land back.
Edit: It's also worth noting that no country has the "right to exist" under international law (link) and that such a concept has no canonical definition or commonly-held interpretation.
Last edited by xerx; Yesterday at 07:01 AM.
I never said that Hamas was full of courteous people. I hate Hamas. I said that Israel isn't the lesser evil where it concerns acts of indiscriminate violence (which now include the rape of Palestinian women - link).
Israel simply wants Hamas to retract its declaration of Jihad and recognize it has some claim to statehood. Until this happens no progress toward peace can begin... Israel is not demanding that Hamas "accept its ideology", i.e. convert to Judaism. That's what you actually just said...
Now, Isreal IS a Jewish state, so that WILL mean Hamas recognizes a Jewish state, and that IS something Hamas struggles with doing. But that's not the ask from a legal standpoint, it's just the psychological process Hamas must go through, as fundamentalist Islamicists, in learning how to interact with its neighbors... but that's Hamas's problem, that's not a legal problem. What's being asked is simply that Hamas abide by international laws and treat its neighbor in a peaceful manner, essentially. Whatever psychological hurdles Hamas has to go through to reach that point - well that's just something Hamas has to deal with. But fundamentally it is not Hamas's business whether Israel is a theocracy... The majority of Israels population is Jewish and by the rights of self-governance they may choose to elect a government that is theocratic, and call themselves a Jewish state, this is their business...
Iran has a right to exist as an Islamic theocracy, or as any other type of non-fascist government whether that be a democracy or dictatorship or whatever else. You're flying off toward the foul pole here - it's for the people of Iran to decide whether they should be ruled by a theocracy or some other form of government. The form of government is an internal matter, it is not a sticking point in international relations. If, in the case of Iran, their ideology leads them to fund terrorism around the world ... well then it does matter, but short of that it does not matter outside of Iran.
This conversation has gone to the land of loony tunes...
Hamas recognizing Israels existence means, essentially, that they stop striving to destroy Israel. It is really that simple. I don't understand how you are confused by this... In reality Hamas is religiously motivated, and strives to destroy Israel because Israel is a Jewish state, and so therefor Hamas does need to accept that Israel - a Jewish state - exists. However, accepting a Jewish state is not legally or functionally what Hamas is being asked to do, this is just the psychological process the fundamentalist Islamicists in Hamas will have to go through to operate as they are expected in accordance with international laws - laws surrounding declarations of war and so fourth. Let me remind you that no international court questions whether Israel had a right to declare war post Oct 7 - they may be questioning Israels methods, that is another matter. But Hamas's attack on Oct 7 is not seen as legally justified by any international court anywhere. What's being asked of Hamas is simply that they drop the declaration of Jihad, recognize Israel as a state, and begin normalizing relations with Israel - which ultimately means working toward a two state solution.
I do not understand how you could get so confused on this point here, this isn't complicated. But then again... this whole conversation has been a testament to your inability to follow simple reasoning.
This argument is just an attempt at obfuscating the issue.
Firstly, this language is defined in Hamas's charter and is used there to justify the declaration of Jihad. And the statement where they stated their willingness to accept land but won't recognize Israels right to exist also appears in the in charter, literally in the same document. So literally they themselves defined what they mean by this statement. But when we say Hamas must recognize Israels right to exist we're speaking to their self-stated attitudes. Legally what they're being asked to do is to stop seeking to destroy Israel. And they have publicly declared destroying Israel is their goal, and they have made no public statement that suggests they wish to change this goal. So wtf is your point...?
Last edited by DogOfDanger; Today at 02:56 AM.
No one who really hates Hamas would peddle for them the way that you do. You don't merely make an objective case for them, you actually distort information and obfuscate the issue, and it's clearly intentional.
Apparently distinguishing between collateral damage in a just war at scale and an act of terror which specifically targets civilians and achieves no military objective is just too difficult.
So I looked into your link. It's clear you did not actually look into this in very much detail. High level overview - essentially there is no evidence presented in your article, it is just a deference to a UN committee dedicated to policing international sexual violence. But the committee also has no evidence, they have simply received reports from Palestinians alleging some incidents of sexual violence and called publicly for an investigation, since they take all such allegations seriously. That is all your link shows, I can even quote you the member of the committee who made the public accusation stating there is no evidence of this claim yet:
So very different than what you said, that as a matter of fact Israeli soldiers have raped Palestinian women. It could have happened... but it also could have not happened. It's a war and PR is absolutely essential in this war, there's really no telling what's going on, we cannot convict Israeli soldiers of some sort of crime here without any evidence. But if it did happen this would not be an action condoned by the Israeli government, and hopefully any particular soldiers that committed these acts, if any, are brought to justice - fortunately, unlike Hamas, Israel doesn't carry out such acts in mass as part of its official strategy.Alsalem was appointed United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls and took up the role in August 2021.
Alsalem made a strong statement alleging that “grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law” had been perpetrated by Israeli soldiers in Gaza. She, along with the UN’s special rapporteur in the Palestinian territories, claimed to have received “credible” reports that Palestinian women and girls had been “subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault”, including rape and strip-searches. Israel denies the claims.
“We have condemned, obviously, what happened on 7 October, and since then,” she told me. “We have condemned the hostage taking, the killings. We have said that where any crimes have happened, including sexual violence, it should be impartially investigated, and those [accused] should be brought to justice.” Alsalem said she has contacted Israeli NGOs and received no response, and has requested to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories, but has so far not been successful: “I have tried. But I cannot make sweeping statements about what may or may not have happened if I am not receiving [evidence].”
Whenever an article repeatedly mentions "the experts" but does not actually provide evidence this should prompt you to do more digging... assuming you actually want to know what you're talking about.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; Today at 02:53 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote