Israel declares war on Hamas

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

they had very strict instructions regarding any discharge of a weapon.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1794140919240724517

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

No rape isn't justified. That's what I said. I also said that actions have consequences, and the soldiers would need to deal with them. Stop trying to spin things and work on your reading comprehension

Not justified but excusable by you in certain instances. Help my reading comprehension out.

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Not making excuses, but I could see what would push the soldiers to such as act.

[Fuzz]

Bagor, you are going to have to summarize that video in your own words, gvitaly doesn't believe in pressing play.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bagor, you are going to have to summarize that video in your own words, gvitaly doesn't believe in pressing play.

Where is the evidence those were real bullets?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

As others have told me when I posted pro Israeli content earlier in the thread - make the argument yourself. Use your own words to tell me which part of history I'm missing. I'll gladly read it, and respond as to how I learned the events in the Israeli school system.

I'll help Fuzz out here. 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced during the formation of Israel. Hundreds of villages were totally destroyed. Wells were poisoned. Enter the Arab League to try quell the growing refugee crisis affecting those countries. Now you get the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Laws were then passed that prevented displaced Palestinians from reclaiming the property they owned, yet The Law of Return was applicable if you were Jewish. Different laws for different ethnicities. I think there's a word for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_P...ion_and_flight


Of course we can go back and find some other awful thing that the Arabs did first. That list is long. But the pretence that Israel is some poor innocent picked on figure that the world conspires against needs to go away.

That doesn't mean there isn't antisemitism in the world. That doesn't mean terrorist attacks against Israel are justified or condoned. It does mean that Israel has to approach peace with some humility for how they contributed to the conditions that have caused this horrible ongoing conflict.

[Language]

There will never be a two-state solution. It’s a complete pipe dream. Geographically, it’s not even possible with Gaza and West Bank disconnected from each other. The way to eventual peace is to untangle those two enclaves entirely. It would need to be a three-state solution. I don’t see it often mentioned but I also can’t see an alternative.

Hell, Fatah and Hamas are theoretically fighting for the same cause, yet despise each other.

West Bank area (governed by a more moderate and reforming Fatah) would need to make peace with Israel first. Israel would have to remove some of its settlements and Fatah would need to prove it has the capability to reel in any potential terrorist activity there, likely with Israeli cooperation. Of course, there would need to be a million other things to figure out.

Eventually, those ruling Gaza would need to come around, otherwise they would see a prospering West Bank, while that enclave continued to live under a blockade, if it was being controlled by terrorists.

But West Bank and Gaza would still be two separate regions. I don’t see how a two state solution even works logistically. Each area would still need to have their own checkpoints.

Whatever negotiations that would be happening with Israel to make this a reality, would require the Palestinians to make more concessions in their demands than Israel would. I’m only saying this as a realist. Israel is the significantly more powerful country and has more of an incentive to simply maintain the status quo. The whole conflict is more of a “nuisance” to them, compared to the necessity for the Palestinians to finally release themselves of generations of misery. So if the Palestinians truly want peace, they need to stop thinking of it as “winning” a deal, because they never will. They might not even get something that they deem is fair. But anything will be better than their current situation and it’s high time someone in their leadership comes to the forefront and says enough is enough. The chances existed in past peace talks and the Palestinians refused because they were looking for more. They will never get more, only less and less as time goes on.

It will never happen in this environment with active hostilities simmering, but maybe years down the line, this is the way I can foresee a potential avenue to peace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

You are correct, It's a shame the US was never able to figure out the logistics of having Alaska separated form the rest of the States...


Moving on from that silly point...this is the problem with the Israeli position. They only want peace as long as they overwhelmingly win. Settling isn't really something they would ever consider, despite them being the ones who showed up on the land and declared a country there, to the dismay of the people living on the land. Those people should now accept their losses, take whatever scraps Israel tosses their way, and also ensure a safe Israeli state in the future. That's the position. The preferred position, is, of course(and as has been stated by many in the military and government), to have them not exist anymore. And you wonder why these "madmen" continue to attack against all odds?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You are correct, It's a shame the US was never able to figure out the logistics of having Alaska separated form the rest of the States...

As part of one of the many deals rejected by the Palestinians over the years, Rabin and Peres proposed the construction of an elevated freeway across the Negev Desert connecting Gaza and the West Bank. They also pitched a free trade zone that included Israel, (the new State of) Palestine and Jordan.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

As part of one of the many deals rejected by the Palestinians over the years, Rabin and Peres proposed the construction of an elevated freeway across the Negev Desert connecting Gaza and the West Bank. They also pitched a free trade zone that included Israel, (the new State of) Palestine and Jordan.

You mean the deal that Israeli extremists threatened and ultimately assassinated Rabin over? Some of whom happen to be in the Israeli government now?

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You mean the deal that Israeli extremists threatened and ultimately assassinated Rabin over? Some of whom happen to be in the Israeli government now?

The rhetoric at the time was terrible I agree and would suggest that aside from October 7 (and perhaps yesterday) the day Rabin was assassinated was the worst day in Israel’s history.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Bagor

https://twitter.com/user/status/1794140919240724517

The soldier in the video is definitely being wreckless with his weapon. In doing so he isn't following regulations, and doing a stupid thing for tiktok. Does it look good? Of course not.

You also have plenty of instances like this one:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1841246846464778257

Originally Posted by Bagor

Not justified but excusable by you in certain instances. Help my reading comprehension out.

I'm not excusing rape, nor justifying it. I've simply outlined a reason I could see push soldiers over the edge. My point is that those soldiers will be dealt with, and will have to face the consequences of their actions.

If the sides were reversed the Palestinian or Hamas terrorist would face zero consequences from other Palestinians. In fact, he would be applauded, as was shown in October of last year.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bagor, you are going to have to summarize that video in your own words, gvitaly doesn't believe in pressing play.

Very funny. Those are the same words that were used against me when I posted a tweet by Ben Shapiro. Guess what? it takes time replying to 4-5 of you, trying to stay concise, and not get dragged into childish arguments, when I get called racist, my family is called terrorists, and so on. As I mentioned I will reply to the summary posted by Bill.

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'll help Fuzz out here. 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced during the formation of Israel. Hundreds of villages were totally destroyed. Wells were poisoned. Enter the Arab League to try quell the growing refugee crisis affecting those countries. Now you get the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Laws were then passed that prevented displaced Palestinians from reclaiming the property they owned, yet The Law of Return was applicable if you were Jewish. Different laws for different ethnicities. I think there's a word for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_P...ion_and_flight


Of course we can go back and find some other awful thing that the Arabs did first. That list is long. But the pretence that Israel is some poor innocent picked on figure that the world conspires against needs to go away.

That doesn't mean there isn't antisemitism in the world. That doesn't mean terrorist attacks against Israel are justified or condoned. It does mean that Israel has to approach peace with some humility for how they contributed to the conditions that have caused this horrible ongoing conflict.

There was a lot of tit for tat going on in 1947-48, when it became clear the Brits were leaving. Both sides had numerous casualties. The conflict escalated when the Jews accepted the British partition plan, and the Arabs did not. As you mention later on I can bring in numerous examples the Arabs did first.

Trying to portray Israel as an aparteid is ridiculous. It has been shown multiple times that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. As for the Law of return, territories change in war. Should Poland get for Lviv back from Ukraine? Should the Jews that were forced out of Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, or even Europe get everything they owned back?

There's also no legislation in the UN, that would obligate Israel to the right of return, nor was there a precedent set for it. Moreover , the definition of a refugee's rights in the 1951 refugee convention doesn't apply to the children or grandchildren of said refugee. IMO that for the right to return to apply an Arab refugee would have had to accept Israeli citizenship.

Now trying to portray the concern for refugees as the driving force behind the Arab nations declaring war on Israel is false. At most it's an excuse, as they declared war the moment Israel declared its independence. Even after the Israeli Arab war was concluded, the Arab leaders didn't look to find a solution for the refugees, instead they chose to leave them as a way to pressure Israel.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bagor, you are going to have to summarize that video in your own words, gvitaly doesn't believe in pressing play.

As an aside I hate when people drop a video without commenting and summarizing the key points or time stamps. Video is one of the worst forms of conveying info. It’s slow, difficult to quote sections, difficult to check sources, and I think much more subject to the persuasiveness of the commentator rather than the content presented.

Also when people post a video without comment then you go through and it and challange someone on a position in it they try to say that’s not my position it’s the videos. If you post it without comment you own those opinions.

Anyway just say no to crappy videos that would be better explained by articles.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

There was a lot of tit for tat going on in 1947-48, when it became clear the Brits were leaving. Both sides had numerous casualties. The conflict escalated when the Jews accepted the British partition plan, and the Arabs did not. As you mention later on I can bring in numerous examples the Arabs did first.

British partition plans have a history of leading to violence. Making the argument that one side is more or less responsible as a result of not accepting the British partition. Look over at the India/Pakistan partition and what it led to.

Some people are racist against the English as a result of these types of thing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

There was a lot of tit for tat going on in 1947-48, when it became clear the Brits were leaving. Both sides had numerous casualties. The conflict escalated when the Jews accepted the British partition plan, and the Arabs did not. As you mention later on I can bring in numerous examples the Arabs did first.

Trying to portray Israel as an aparteid is ridiculous. It has been shown multiple times that Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Israeli Jews. As for the Law of return, territories change in war. Should Poland get for Lviv back from Ukraine? Should the Jews that were forced out of Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, or even Europe get everything they owned back?

There's also no legislation in the UN, that would obligate Israel to the right of return, nor was there a precedent set for it. Moreover , the definition of a refugee's rights in the 1951 refugee convention doesn't apply to the children or grandchildren of said refugee. IMO that for the right to return to apply an Arab refugee would have had to accept Israeli citizenship.

Now trying to portray the concern for refugees as the driving force behind the Arab nations declaring war on Israel is false. At most it's an excuse, as they declared war the moment Israel declared its independence. Even after the Israeli Arab war was concluded, the Arab leaders didn't look to find a solution for the refugees, instead they chose to leave them as a way to pressure Israel.

I keep hearing this, then I read pieces like this, and I don't know who to believe.

Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCIs) are among Israel’s most marginalized minorities. Israel does not have a constitution that guarantees equality for all before the law. Instead, important privileges and rights are conferred based on nationality. For example, an Israeli law passed in 2018 declared that only Jewish people have a right to self-determination and that Arabic is not an official language, despite its indigeneity. Even discussing the Palestinian history of displacement and dispossession in public entities, including schools, risks the loss of state funding under legislation popularly known as the Nakba law.

https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/...tizens?lang=en

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by GGG

British partition plans have a history of leading to violence. Making the argument that one side is more or less responsible as a result of not accepting the British partition. Look over at the India/Pakistan partition and what it led to.

Some people are racist against the English as a result of these types of thing.

I think that it is less that people are racist again the English and more that for many countries they view the English the same way that western europeans view the Nazis. Pure Evil.

[Fuzz]

An Israeli air strike that killed multiple children at a former school twelve days ago had been targeting one local Hamas figure, the BBC has been told.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said a Hamas "command and control centre" had been embedded inside the compound in Gaza City, which it targeted in a "precise strike" on 21 September.

It killed 22 people, including 13 children and six women, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

The school, closed during the war, had been housing displaced people, the health ministry said.

One young girl, Amal, told the BBC she had been inside the school building when it was hit and saw bodies “torn apart”.

“What have we done as children? We wake up and go to sleep terrified," she said.
“At least protect the schools; we don’t have schools or homes - where do we go?”

Sources have told the BBC that one of those killed was a local Hamas figure, meaning many civilians died due to a single main target.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3dv18l03n1o

I just don't understand how you can justify and support killing 13 children(and others) to take out one Hamas terrorist. I guess it's easier when you don't have to look the children in their eyes just before killing them. Just numbers, not people.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I'm not excusing rape, nor justifying it. I've simply outlined a reason I could see push soldiers over the edge. My point is that those soldiers will be dealt with, and will have to face the consequences of their actions.

If the sides were reversed the Palestinian or Hamas terrorist would face zero consequences from other Palestinians. In fact, he would be applauded, as was shown in October of last year.

Applauded? Go one better! Invite the rapist onto a TV show and applaud him there. Give him gifts for his brave act of rape.

The fact that a rapist was invited on television shows and glorified for sexually abusing innocent Palestinians left people worldwide astonished and outraged.

Even more disturbing was how Ben-####rit was treated by the hosts of the shows he appeared on.

He was applauded and treated like a celebrity on the Israeli Channel 14 show aired a few weeks after the sodomy case came to light. The studio audience gave him several standing ovations, and he was even offered financial support...

... When asked about the reaction of Israeli settlers after he revealed himself as the perpetrator of sodomy in an Israeli prison, Ben-####rit responded that he received "a lot of love."

He emphasized that most settlers, even those in Tel Aviv, expressed their support to him with many hugs. "I even got a holiday package," he added

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/0...ionist-circles

A rapist that's treated like a hero for committing rape. See you're really not unlike Hamas.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

As an aside I hate when people drop a video without commenting and summarizing the key points or time stamps. Video is one of the worst forms of conveying info. It’s slow, difficult to quote sections, difficult to check sources, and I think much more subject to the persuasiveness of the commentator rather than the content presented.

Also when people post a video without comment then you go through and it and challange someone on a position in it they try to say that’s not my position it’s the videos. If you post it without comment you own those opinions.

Anyway just say no to crappy videos that would be better explained by articles.

I really didn't think anything needed to be said in that it was pretty self explanatory in countering the point being made that the IDF "had very strict instructions regarding any discharge of a weapon."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I really didn't think anything needed to be said in that it was pretty self explanatory in countering the point being made that the IDF "had very strict instructions regarding any discharge of a weapon."

I agree wasn’t specifically talking about your video., I was just more taking the opportunity to rant about how videos are terrible.