Th really don’t though. You’re drawing your conclusions from the facts and I think your conclusions are shallow and poorly reasoned, and I think that you often cite to other people who draw the same conclusions as you because it makes you feel good.
We don’t have to agree it’s fine. I can still respect you. You’re disgusted by 30,000 deaths, mostly innocent civilians; you’re probably a very decent and justice-minded person, instincts that must serve you well. They are my instincts too, and serve me well.
I’m not interested in the chicken or the egg debate. though because it’s not relevant to the next hundred years. I’m interested in not having a hot war with Iran and not having the worlds dictatorships laughing while they wipe democracies off the map, which is what happens if Hamas gets its way. Start there.
Obviously Hamas is not going to get its way. Its outmatched in every sense except it’s martyrous zeal, and your instinct is what they count on as their only path to continued existence.
Again I ask, what did they think would be the result of October 7?
Advocating for a One-State or Two-State Solution is not “wiping a Democracy off the map,” it’s advocating for Palestinian people to have basic human and civil rights. If you think that Israel committing Apartheid or ethnic cleansing are ‘shallow and poorly reasoned conclusions’ then you haven’t taken a look at the facts. This has nothing to do with instincts, it has to do with media literacy. That’s why as a serious source to learn more about the conflict, I point to Ilan Pappe or Avi Shlaim or Nur Masalha. They are magnitudes more knowledgeable about the history of Israel-Palestine.
Hamas officials said shortly following the attack that it was a response to the Israeli occupation, blockade of the Gaza Strip, Israeli settler violence against Palestinians, restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, and imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians.
Mohammad Deif, the head of Hamas’s military wing, the Qassam Brigades, said in a recorded message on 7 October that it was in response to what he called the “desecration” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and Israel killing and wounding hundreds of Palestinians in 2023. He called on Palestinians and Arab Israelis to “expel the occupiers and demolish the walls”. Deif also called on “Muslims everywhere to launch an attack” against Israel and to urged supporters to “kill them [the enemy] wherever you may find them”. He continued, “in light of the continuing crimes against our people, in light of the orgy of occupation and its denial of international laws and resolutions, and in light of American and western [sic] support, we’ve decided to put an end to all this, so that the enemy understands that he can no longer revel without being held to account.”
The answers to this conflict are not in the history. I don’t care who came first, the chicken or the egg. Besides, if you dig deep enough, the oldest artifacts and recorded history in the entire region are Judiac.
Hamas is in charge of Gaza. The thing preventing Gaza from having what it needs is Hamas. They can’t follow zero international laws and norms whatsoever and expect to be treated like a legitimate state actor. They are not. Hamas is a terrorist organization and the present hostilities will not end until Hamas is gone. Hopefully they stop taking innocent people with them.
The answers? No, the context is. That context being setter colonialism, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. This isn’t a chicken and egg scenario. No ancestral claim to any land justifies ethnic cleansing of the native population living on that land.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947-49 was deliberate, the concept of Transfer is fundamental to zionism. It didn’t matter that the Palestinian leadership repeatedly advocated for a Unitary Binational State.
Gaza has been under occupation, Hamas has been internally governing Gaza since 2007, under the Blockade occupation of Israel. Hamas is a resistance movement that has done acts of terrorism, yes. That doesn’t change the fact that Hamas and other Armed resistance groups are the only ones fighting back against the Israeli occupation, a right which they have under international law. That doesn’t exempt them from war crimes, which is why you see Human Rights Orgs report on them when committed.
Resistance movements only get bigger as the oppression worsens, like it is now in both the West Bank and much more so in Gaza.
What do you know about what it’s like to live under Israeli occupation? If you don’t understand that, you’ll never understand why people choose to violently resist the occupation.
Gaza is not under occupation. Occupation is something that one country does to another. Gaza is not a country. Therefore Gaza is not occupied. See how that works?
Occupation is something that involves an opposing military force. Gaza doesn’t have an opposing military force. It has terrorists.
A military force respects international law and wears uniforms, it doesn’t actually and for-real target civilians indiscriminately with no pretext of military targeting.
Gaza isn’t a country and doesn’t have the rights of a country. Period. And it never will be, because of Hamas’s visionary leadership. They need to free the hostages and stop treating Gaza and everyone in it as one giant human shield. Where you’re from do you have any expressions such mess with the bull get the horns? Live by the sword die by the sword? Don’t start nothing won’t be nothing? Reap what you sow?
I understand why they resist and have a lot of sympathy with their perceived plight. And I supported a two-state solution until recently, when it became absolutely clear that Hamas will not evolve, and will not permit peace in Gaza as long as it remains. It is a far right authoritarian movement with no loyalty to the people of Gaza. The people there should have fought Hamas instead of Israel, maybe they wouldn’t be wallowing in rubble right now.
Ok dude, at this point you must be being intentionally obtuse. I don’t know if you’re in denial or you just like making up your own definitions, either way maybe you should try proving yourself wrong for a change.
Military occupation, also known as belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is the temporary military control by a ruling power over a territory that is outside of that power’s sovereign territory. The territory is then known as the occupied territory and the ruling power the occupant. Occupation is distinguished from annexation and colonialism by its intended temporary duration.
Straight from the wiki. The rules and definitions of Occupation have been very clearly laid out for a long time. And Israel has repeatedly violated international laws for a very long time.
Again, if you don’t understand the occupation, the setter colonialism, the apartheid. You will never understand the armed resistance against the Israeli occupation.
Seems like you’re not only confidently incorrect, but you also have no interest in learning a comprehensive history about the founding of Israel, the violent occupation, or a potential resolution. Because they are all intertwined. Hopefully I’m wrong, and you’ll choose to learn more. Here I have aggregated events that date back to the early 18th century all the way to present day, with multiple sources when I can. I only made that page as a jumping off point. If you are genuinely serious about learning the truth, you need to read the works of New Historians. Ideally multiple of them. I listed out the three I find the most comprehensive in my previous response. Ilan Pappe even has a few books on Audible so you can listen instead of read his works.
Bud I had my share of mid east history and world politics in college. I’m not going to redo the assigned reading, the post grad reading, or the extracurricular reading, because you think you know something that I don’t know already. Let’s assume I know the full history down to every detail you feel is important.
It still doesn’t in any way help to address the present conflict and the present belligerents. So it seems like there’s only one reason you’d bring it up and it very much has to do with who the belligerents are.and very little to do with what they’ve done, and it has nothing to do with interests in peace or humanity, if it’s not complete vanity.
I understand there are diabolically evil war criminals in the IDF and Israeli government just as there are in Hamas, and plenty of hate to go around for anyone that wants to join in. My country, too. One side gives them prizes with biblical zeal and conviction, fail not, and the other tries to keep the crimes quiet, or tries them in court and convicts them, some of the time, and has as its current political leadership a party that is very likely to be voted out of office, possibly very soon. Oh no, I can’t tell which one is worse, better pick the one that doesn’t make the news so sad. 🤡
Give me a break. The time for Gaza to stop living in the ninth century and be a world citizen has passed. Willfully targeting civilians is not a legitimate means of resistance. I can understand it’s motivation and understand that it is a criminal enterprise, incompatible with western concepts of representative government and civil rights, and in fact peoplemin Gaza who espouse such concepts get put to death as infidels by religious police. And yet you give Hamas a wholesale pass, not only all that, but also on using the entirety the population of Gaza as human shields and bargaining chips.
That’s the starting point. I don’t understand why you’re looking backwards from here? Definitely not interested in arguing about semantics. But if you keep reading your article beyong the literal first sentence, you’ll see I’m getting it from Article 43 of the Hague Convention.
Yet a multitude of international and human rights organizations have considered it occupation because Israel still controls Gaza through military force.
many prominent international institutions, organizations and bodies—including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UN General Assembly (UNGA), European Union (EU), African Union, International Criminal Court (ICC) (both Pre-Trial Chamber I and the Office of the Prosecutor), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch—as well as international legal experts and other organizations, argue that Israel has occupied Palestinian territories including Gaza since 1967.1 While they acknowledge that Israel no longer had the traditional marker of effective control after the disengagement—a military presence—they hold that with the help of technology, it has maintained the requisite control in other ways.
Specifically, experts from the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory found “noting” positions held by the UN Security Council, UNGA, a 2014 declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the ICRC, and “positions of previous commissions of inquiry,” that Israel has “control exercised over, inter alia, [Gaza’s] airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, supply of civilian infrastructure, including water and electricity, and key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry.” They also point to “other forms of force, such as military incursions and firing missiles.”
But I’ll assume you know more about the conflict than all of them. After all, you did mention that you read some history books. I’m sure they weren’t filled with revisionist history.
That’s the thing, the links I provide are to show exactly what you’re getting wrong.
Th really don’t though. You’re drawing your conclusions from the facts and I think your conclusions are shallow and poorly reasoned, and I think that you often cite to other people who draw the same conclusions as you because it makes you feel good.
We don’t have to agree it’s fine. I can still respect you. You’re disgusted by 30,000 deaths, mostly innocent civilians; you’re probably a very decent and justice-minded person, instincts that must serve you well. They are my instincts too, and serve me well.
I’m not interested in the chicken or the egg debate. though because it’s not relevant to the next hundred years. I’m interested in not having a hot war with Iran and not having the worlds dictatorships laughing while they wipe democracies off the map, which is what happens if Hamas gets its way. Start there.
Obviously Hamas is not going to get its way. Its outmatched in every sense except it’s martyrous zeal, and your instinct is what they count on as their only path to continued existence.
Again I ask, what did they think would be the result of October 7?
Advocating for a One-State or Two-State Solution is not “wiping a Democracy off the map,” it’s advocating for Palestinian people to have basic human and civil rights. If you think that Israel committing Apartheid or ethnic cleansing are ‘shallow and poorly reasoned conclusions’ then you haven’t taken a look at the facts. This has nothing to do with instincts, it has to do with media literacy. That’s why as a serious source to learn more about the conflict, I point to Ilan Pappe or Avi Shlaim or Nur Masalha. They are magnitudes more knowledgeable about the history of Israel-Palestine.
We can find quickly in the wiki:
The answers to this conflict are not in the history. I don’t care who came first, the chicken or the egg. Besides, if you dig deep enough, the oldest artifacts and recorded history in the entire region are Judiac.
Hamas is in charge of Gaza. The thing preventing Gaza from having what it needs is Hamas. They can’t follow zero international laws and norms whatsoever and expect to be treated like a legitimate state actor. They are not. Hamas is a terrorist organization and the present hostilities will not end until Hamas is gone. Hopefully they stop taking innocent people with them.
The answers? No, the context is. That context being setter colonialism, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid. This isn’t a chicken and egg scenario. No ancestral claim to any land justifies ethnic cleansing of the native population living on that land.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947-49 was deliberate, the concept of Transfer is fundamental to zionism. It didn’t matter that the Palestinian leadership repeatedly advocated for a Unitary Binational State.
The Israeli occupation of the rest of historical Palestine in 1967 was deliberate. For half a century, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip has resulted in systematic human rights violations against Palestinians living there. with the goal of further annexation while excluding Palestinians.
Gaza has been under occupation, Hamas has been internally governing Gaza since 2007, under the Blockade occupation of Israel. Hamas is a resistance movement that has done acts of terrorism, yes. That doesn’t change the fact that Hamas and other Armed resistance groups are the only ones fighting back against the Israeli occupation, a right which they have under international law. That doesn’t exempt them from war crimes, which is why you see Human Rights Orgs report on them when committed.
Resistance movements only get bigger as the oppression worsens, like it is now in both the West Bank and much more so in Gaza.
What do you know about what it’s like to live under Israeli occupation? If you don’t understand that, you’ll never understand why people choose to violently resist the occupation.
I really don’t see how any of this is relevant.
Gaza is not under occupation. Occupation is something that one country does to another. Gaza is not a country. Therefore Gaza is not occupied. See how that works?
Occupation is something that involves an opposing military force. Gaza doesn’t have an opposing military force. It has terrorists.
A military force respects international law and wears uniforms, it doesn’t actually and for-real target civilians indiscriminately with no pretext of military targeting.
Gaza isn’t a country and doesn’t have the rights of a country. Period. And it never will be, because of Hamas’s visionary leadership. They need to free the hostages and stop treating Gaza and everyone in it as one giant human shield. Where you’re from do you have any expressions such mess with the bull get the horns? Live by the sword die by the sword? Don’t start nothing won’t be nothing? Reap what you sow?
I understand why they resist and have a lot of sympathy with their perceived plight. And I supported a two-state solution until recently, when it became absolutely clear that Hamas will not evolve, and will not permit peace in Gaza as long as it remains. It is a far right authoritarian movement with no loyalty to the people of Gaza. The people there should have fought Hamas instead of Israel, maybe they wouldn’t be wallowing in rubble right now.
Ok dude, at this point you must be being intentionally obtuse. I don’t know if you’re in denial or you just like making up your own definitions, either way maybe you should try proving yourself wrong for a change.
Straight from the wiki. The rules and definitions of Occupation have been very clearly laid out for a long time. And Israel has repeatedly violated international laws for a very long time.
Again, if you don’t understand the occupation, the setter colonialism, the apartheid. You will never understand the armed resistance against the Israeli occupation.
Seems like you’re not only confidently incorrect, but you also have no interest in learning a comprehensive history about the founding of Israel, the violent occupation, or a potential resolution. Because they are all intertwined. Hopefully I’m wrong, and you’ll choose to learn more. Here I have aggregated events that date back to the early 18th century all the way to present day, with multiple sources when I can. I only made that page as a jumping off point. If you are genuinely serious about learning the truth, you need to read the works of New Historians. Ideally multiple of them. I listed out the three I find the most comprehensive in my previous response. Ilan Pappe even has a few books on Audible so you can listen instead of read his works.
Bud I had my share of mid east history and world politics in college. I’m not going to redo the assigned reading, the post grad reading, or the extracurricular reading, because you think you know something that I don’t know already. Let’s assume I know the full history down to every detail you feel is important.
It still doesn’t in any way help to address the present conflict and the present belligerents. So it seems like there’s only one reason you’d bring it up and it very much has to do with who the belligerents are.and very little to do with what they’ve done, and it has nothing to do with interests in peace or humanity, if it’s not complete vanity.
I understand there are diabolically evil war criminals in the IDF and Israeli government just as there are in Hamas, and plenty of hate to go around for anyone that wants to join in. My country, too. One side gives them prizes with biblical zeal and conviction, fail not, and the other tries to keep the crimes quiet, or tries them in court and convicts them, some of the time, and has as its current political leadership a party that is very likely to be voted out of office, possibly very soon. Oh no, I can’t tell which one is worse, better pick the one that doesn’t make the news so sad. 🤡
Give me a break. The time for Gaza to stop living in the ninth century and be a world citizen has passed. Willfully targeting civilians is not a legitimate means of resistance. I can understand it’s motivation and understand that it is a criminal enterprise, incompatible with western concepts of representative government and civil rights, and in fact peoplemin Gaza who espouse such concepts get put to death as infidels by religious police. And yet you give Hamas a wholesale pass, not only all that, but also on using the entirety the population of Gaza as human shields and bargaining chips.
That’s the starting point. I don’t understand why you’re looking backwards from here? Definitely not interested in arguing about semantics. But if you keep reading your article beyong the literal first sentence, you’ll see I’m getting it from Article 43 of the Hague Convention.
Yet a multitude of international and human rights organizations have considered it occupation because Israel still controls Gaza through military force.
But I’ll assume you know more about the conflict than all of them. After all, you did mention that you read some history books. I’m sure they weren’t filled with revisionist history.