If someone argument is: they warn them, even though there are pictures of convey leaving an area getting bombed, or death numbers, in non hamas areas, west bank, has sky rocketed, you can tell they don’t care about human dying, they just want to win an argument over the internet.
They bomb where there are terrorists and there are definitely terrorists in the west bank, they hide behind civilians for propaganda and safety. Civilians will definitely get killed, it’s a war and this happens in every war
Not if there are enemy combatants in those places. You can’t launch missiles from a hospital and expect the enemy not to strike at your missile stockpile
If terrorists are shooting missiles at you, you have the right to respond and shoot missiles back. If you warned the civilians and not all of them left, that’s a situation out of your control. Do you have an alternate solution?
They don’t do a great job of it, but when has anyone else prevented all civilian casualties in a war? It doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to strike at Hamas
That’s right that they don’t do a great job at that as they kill over 20 times more Palestinians than Hamas kills Israeli. They just don’t care at all.
That’s such a dumb argument, Hamas would LOVE to kill more civilians in fact they’d like to kill all the Jewish people in Israel. Israel could very easily kill everyone in Gaza but instead they’re building complex defensive systems and using incredibly expensive systems to try and limit civilian casualties.
Yes Hamas are not nice people and would happily kill every Israeli, but that doesn’t mean Israel should not exercise caution to avoid killing palestinians.
I completely agree, and I really think they do because if they wanted to they could wipe that place off the map in an hour but whats always stopped their military is global public opinion due to civilian casualties. It doesn’t make sense for them to give Hamas political capitol by targeting civilians.
I absolutely agree some of their tactics have been brutal and civilian casualties are high but that’s true in every war.
Israel has been making major strides in creating friendly relations where possible in the region, especially with Jordan and Saudi Arabia - the last thing they need is a brutal conflict resulting in dead Muslims, however Muslim fundamentalists benefit greatly from Israel looking bad which is why it’s likely Iran and other groups have forced this conflict and planned it in a way that makes civilian casualties impossible to avoid.
I think there are probably better solutions than what’s currently happening, I have no idea what they would be though and everything I think of has either been tried or has obvious flaws.
The oppression of Palestinian people by Israel predates the existence of Hamas. Gaza (until 2007 when the blockade began) and the West Bank have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967, against international law. Hamas is a more violent, more radical descendant from the Muslim Brotherhood and was founded in 1987.
What I don’t understand is why many reject Sharia law as fascist and undemocratic, which is a justified opinion, but hand-wave Zionism even tho it’s the same fascist Holy Scripture bullshit in a different color.
By internationally recognized you mean recognized by the Muslim community.
Up until 1967 Egypt controlled gaza and Jordan the west bank and there was no talk of peace, the line has always been there can be no state of Israel in any form. Within the last 20 years pals have been offered states on the 1967 borders and refused. The Oslo accords which included incremental steps to peace led to nothing but terrorism, all the aid pals receive they use for terrorism. They have explicitly unanimously said for decades that they will fight Israel to the death and have not made any offers or concessions to peace and you want to just these Islamic fundamentalist to behave if they let them into Israel? Do you know the history of Lebanon. You are native if you think you can trust hamas’, ISIS… Did you not see hamas on TV saying they didn’t target civilians in their attacks?
Before 1967 the arabs refused to accept the state of Israel and launched a war to destroy it in 1967 so they lost the land. The land is not held for them in perpetuity to attack and attack… If they want peace they have to give in peace, if they attack them they should be attacked, it is simple.
No one should be kept in prison but you keep a murderer in prison because of what they’ve done.
At this point you will say, well what about what Israel did… And I promise you if you go back pals have instigated every conflict. They are unwilling to live in peace with non Muslim, they follow a fascist Islamic ideology and are explicit about it. The jews , who are the natives of the land, have repeatedly shown a willingness to live in peace with arabs, with a pal state and with arabs in the Jewish state. During the Oslo peace negotiations they talked about putting Arab areae of Israel under the PLO and the Israeli arabs absolutely refused, Arabs living in Israel have better quality of life than anywhere in the Arab world, Arab countries are corrupt theocracies, Israel is a liberal democracy , this is why the fascist Muslims hate it, this is what they are talking about when they say ‘european colonialsim’, that it’s not a fascist Muslim theocracy
So since you’re a massive moron I don’t plan to engage with you much longer, but lemme say this: Netenyahu’s election platform is and has been for thirty years not making peace with Palestinians. He’s actively sabotaged the Palestinian peace movement over and over to prevent it from happening.
Yeah he won because before him you had leftist prime ministers who offered everything to the pals, have them more autonomy and it only resulted in more terrorism. The pals will fight to the death no matter what, they say so explicitly, they don’t want freedom or prosperity they are Islamic fascist and want to destroy Israel , that’s it. If they wanted peace and prosperity they’ve already had every opportunity
1947 is its own mess, but it was Israel (specifically Netenyahu) who called off the Oslo accords. Where the fuck did you find that Palestinians refused a two state solution in 1993?
The Palestinians suspended the talks and never made a counter offer. After that Hamas etc sent suicide bombers and an Israeli terrorist machine gunned a mosque and there’s never been a chance of peace since
In Israel’s May 1999 elections, the Labor Party’s Ehud Barak decisively defeated Netanyahu. Barak predicted that he could reach agreements with both Syria and the Palestinians in 12 to 15 months, and pledged to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. In September, Barak signed the Sharm al-Shaykh Memorandum with Arafat, which committed both sides to begin permanent status negotiations. An initial round of meetings, however, achieved nothing, and by December the Palestinians suspended talks over settlement-building in the occupied territories.
Okay so we need to distinguish between the Oslo accords (which Netenyahu called off in 1996) and the 2000 Camp David summit. You’re talking about the latter. With that out of the way, the 2000 Camp David summit deal had very objectionable terms for Palestinians. I can go into the details, but I think we can just take the then-Israeli Minister of Foreign Relations’s word for it.
In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.
You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy “functional autonomy”; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and “custodianship,” though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no “right of return” to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees’ rehabilitation.
Special forces operations meticulously planned to clear out the tunnels, with both less lethal options and lethal options depending on whether resistance is armed or not.
Using precision munitions on verified targets instead of levelling entire blocks
Not turning off electricity to children’s hospitals
Not starving people
Even if you fully believe that Hamas should be and can be ripped out root and stem, cutting off electricity and food is completely inexcusable.
I never said cutting off electricity and food is necessary. I agree that precision strikes (with prior notification to civilians) are the preferred way to destroy military targets, but I also think Israel has the right to go in and remove Hamas permanently. This would also cause civilian casualties, but Hamas has shown it’s not an organization that can be allowed to exist
So you would do nothing and let terrorists get away with it
There’s a very wide range of options between “doing nothing” and “intentionally bombing civilians”
They’re not intentionally bombing civilians, you are repeating about. Hamas’ attacks civilians and hides behind civilians
So long as Israel continues to remain in that range, you support them, full-bore yeah?
They warned them ahead of time, which is the correct way to do war. Can’t be intentionally targeting civilians if you tell everyone where you strike
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-is-israel-attacking-south-gaza-after-telling-people-go-there-2023-10-25/
well they also are bombing the places that they told the civilians to go for safety, that kinda seems like intentionally targeting civilians to me
deleted by creator
You can if you then strike everywhere.
I also don’t believe they do it consistently.
If someone argument is: they warn them, even though there are pictures of convey leaving an area getting bombed, or death numbers, in non hamas areas, west bank, has sky rocketed, you can tell they don’t care about human dying, they just want to win an argument over the internet.
Not to mention it’s still pretty fucking shitty bombing their homes, even if they were making every effort to ensure they don’t die in the process.
Imagine receiving a flyer that said “get out before we level this building tonight”.
Imagine not receiving a flyer, just being killed by a rocket launched by Hamas without warning
They bomb where there are terrorists and there are definitely terrorists in the west bank, they hide behind civilians for propaganda and safety. Civilians will definitely get killed, it’s a war and this happens in every war
West Bank, the famously terrorist-free area
Nope. Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
Not if there are enemy combatants in those places. You can’t launch missiles from a hospital and expect the enemy not to strike at your missile stockpile
How many innocent people can I murder along with the terrorist, before I’M the terrorist?
1?
10?
10,000?
Or do I need the full 6,000,000?
If terrorists are shooting missiles at you, you have the right to respond and shoot missiles back. If you warned the civilians and not all of them left, that’s a situation out of your control. Do you have an alternate solution?
“imma let a nuclear bomb explode in New York in 1 hour, yall need to leave.” There, properly warned. Damn this is easy isn’t it?
“Gazans! We are going to strike Gaza! Now you’re warned, eat shit and die”
The answer isn’t to indiscriminately just level entire neighborhoods.
I agree, but even a surgical operation would cause civilian deaths. You can’t deny that there would be costs to civilians
Yeah, why bother trying to minimize civilian casualties, especially if it sounds like work.
They don’t do a great job of it, but when has anyone else prevented all civilian casualties in a war? It doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to strike at Hamas
That’s right that they don’t do a great job at that as they kill over 20 times more Palestinians than Hamas kills Israeli. They just don’t care at all.
That’s such a dumb argument, Hamas would LOVE to kill more civilians in fact they’d like to kill all the Jewish people in Israel. Israel could very easily kill everyone in Gaza but instead they’re building complex defensive systems and using incredibly expensive systems to try and limit civilian casualties.
You can’t just go on which number is bigger.
Yes Hamas are not nice people and would happily kill every Israeli, but that doesn’t mean Israel should not exercise caution to avoid killing palestinians.
I completely agree, and I really think they do because if they wanted to they could wipe that place off the map in an hour but whats always stopped their military is global public opinion due to civilian casualties. It doesn’t make sense for them to give Hamas political capitol by targeting civilians.
I absolutely agree some of their tactics have been brutal and civilian casualties are high but that’s true in every war.
Israel has been making major strides in creating friendly relations where possible in the region, especially with Jordan and Saudi Arabia - the last thing they need is a brutal conflict resulting in dead Muslims, however Muslim fundamentalists benefit greatly from Israel looking bad which is why it’s likely Iran and other groups have forced this conflict and planned it in a way that makes civilian casualties impossible to avoid.
I think there are probably better solutions than what’s currently happening, I have no idea what they would be though and everything I think of has either been tried or has obvious flaws.
The oppression of Palestinian people by Israel predates the existence of Hamas. Gaza (until 2007 when the blockade began) and the West Bank have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967, against international law. Hamas is a more violent, more radical descendant from the Muslim Brotherhood and was founded in 1987.
Everyone knew and knows that Hamas is radical organization bent on terrorism, but still the current Likud regime deliberately used Hamas to keep PNA-influence at bay.
What I don’t understand is why many reject Sharia law as fascist and undemocratic, which is a justified opinion, but hand-wave Zionism even tho it’s the same fascist Holy Scripture bullshit in a different color.
Source: Hamas
Source: the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
But thanks for playing.
Data only goes to 8/31
Can’t think of any incident that happened after this?
Israel could start with restoring the internationally recognised borders. That’s one war crime down.
By internationally recognized you mean recognized by the Muslim community.
Up until 1967 Egypt controlled gaza and Jordan the west bank and there was no talk of peace, the line has always been there can be no state of Israel in any form. Within the last 20 years pals have been offered states on the 1967 borders and refused. The Oslo accords which included incremental steps to peace led to nothing but terrorism, all the aid pals receive they use for terrorism. They have explicitly unanimously said for decades that they will fight Israel to the death and have not made any offers or concessions to peace and you want to just these Islamic fundamentalist to behave if they let them into Israel? Do you know the history of Lebanon. You are native if you think you can trust hamas’, ISIS… Did you not see hamas on TV saying they didn’t target civilians in their attacks?
Bruh there is literally a UN resolution calling for Israel’s retreat to 1967 borders.
The UN is not the arbitrator of morality.
Before 1967 the arabs refused to accept the state of Israel and launched a war to destroy it in 1967 so they lost the land. The land is not held for them in perpetuity to attack and attack… If they want peace they have to give in peace, if they attack them they should be attacked, it is simple.
No one should be kept in prison but you keep a murderer in prison because of what they’ve done.
At this point you will say, well what about what Israel did… And I promise you if you go back pals have instigated every conflict. They are unwilling to live in peace with non Muslim, they follow a fascist Islamic ideology and are explicit about it. The jews , who are the natives of the land, have repeatedly shown a willingness to live in peace with arabs, with a pal state and with arabs in the Jewish state. During the Oslo peace negotiations they talked about putting Arab areae of Israel under the PLO and the Israeli arabs absolutely refused, Arabs living in Israel have better quality of life than anywhere in the Arab world, Arab countries are corrupt theocracies, Israel is a liberal democracy , this is why the fascist Muslims hate it, this is what they are talking about when they say ‘european colonialsim’, that it’s not a fascist Muslim theocracy
So since you’re a massive moron I don’t plan to engage with you much longer, but lemme say this: Netenyahu’s election platform is and has been for thirty years not making peace with Palestinians. He’s actively sabotaged the Palestinian peace movement over and over to prevent it from happening.
And good job changing the goalposts.
Yeah he won because before him you had leftist prime ministers who offered everything to the pals, have them more autonomy and it only resulted in more terrorism. The pals will fight to the death no matter what, they say so explicitly, they don’t want freedom or prosperity they are Islamic fascist and want to destroy Israel , that’s it. If they wanted peace and prosperity they’ve already had every opportunity
The UN proposed partition in 1947, Palestinians refused.
The US proposed a two state solution in 1993, Palestinians refused
What the fuck? What the actual fuck?
1947 is its own mess, but it was Israel (specifically Netenyahu) who called off the Oslo accords. Where the fuck did you find that Palestinians refused a two state solution in 1993?
The Palestinians suspended the talks and never made a counter offer. After that Hamas etc sent suicide bombers and an Israeli terrorist machine gunned a mosque and there’s never been a chance of peace since
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1993-2000/oslo
Okay so we need to distinguish between the Oslo accords (which Netenyahu called off in 1996) and the 2000 Camp David summit. You’re talking about the latter. With that out of the way, the 2000 Camp David summit deal had very objectionable terms for Palestinians. I can go into the details, but I think we can just take the then-Israeli Minister of Foreign Relations’s word for it.
You’re right, I was referring to Camp David, and the deal sounds pretty good conpared to today’s situation
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3
Do you believe those are the only two options?
What is the alternative?
I can think of a few:
Special forces operations meticulously planned to clear out the tunnels, with both less lethal options and lethal options depending on whether resistance is armed or not.
Using precision munitions on verified targets instead of levelling entire blocks
Not turning off electricity to children’s hospitals
Not starving people
Even if you fully believe that Hamas should be and can be ripped out root and stem, cutting off electricity and food is completely inexcusable.
I never said cutting off electricity and food is necessary. I agree that precision strikes (with prior notification to civilians) are the preferred way to destroy military targets, but I also think Israel has the right to go in and remove Hamas permanently. This would also cause civilian casualties, but Hamas has shown it’s not an organization that can be allowed to exist