Israel declares war on Hamas

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

No. I do not. They went out of their way to divert funds away from Hamas and try to control them. You either cut off funding for Hamas or allow it and try and control it. Netanyahu is being criticized for the later choice.

According to people in here, it's lack of quality of life that creates terrorism, not funding. So which is it?

Ah, so you disagree with using Netanyahu’s own words and policies when determining his intents. Cool. Not sure why you’re bothering weighing in then, because I’m not going to reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into.

As to the second line, I thought your last embarrassment here would have smartened you up. Don’t even bother playing these stupid games, because you’re just going to end up tucking your tail again. You know what people have said on the subject and are smart enough not to have to ask that question, especially if you don’t see things as “black and white” (lol) so I’m going to stop you at your #### before you get carried away.

Originally Posted by blankall

No one has ever said Netanyahu is a peace maker. He's a military orientated former soldier. He's also a long-serving politician, who stays in power by courting the right wing. When the US puts pressure on him to make the lives of Gazans better, he is tasked with selling those concessions to right win members of his government.

Skeeter literally just cited Netanyahu’s peace making “efforts”, so yes, someone did. Not sure you’re selling him the way you think you are by suggesting he only attempts to make life in Gaza better when there is international pressure to do so.

Originally Posted by blankall

I agree settlers are provocative, unfriendly and a severe barrier to any peace plan. The vast majority of them are children who are born there; those children are not evil. I do not see Jews moving back into areas historically inhabited by Jews as evil.

I also think anti-settler sentiment is used as a means to provide more Arab control over Jerusalem. As the majority of settlers live in and around Jerusalem, an area that has seen significant Arab settlement too.

I see a double standard, as the Palestinians are to be provided with a state that is ethnically and religiously homogenous despite the area being historically very very far from that.

I'm not evasive. I don't see things as simple black and white.

Sure, settlers are just provocative and unfriendly.

If you’re actually willing to read something and expand your limited worldview on this topic, try this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/m...-impunity.html

I know, it doesn’t paint ultranationalists as the pesky little rascals that are being unfairly criticized for ulterior motives, but maybe you’ll learn something.

If you actually aren’t evasive, that is.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ah, so you disagree with using Netanyahu’s own words and policies when determining his intents. Cool. Not sure why you’re bothering weighing in then, because I’m not going to reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into.

As to the second line, I thought your last embarrassment here would have smartened you up. Don’t even bother playing these stupid games, because you’re just going to end up tucking your tail again. You know what people have said on the subject and are smart enough not to have to ask that question, especially if you don’t see things as “black and white” (lol) so I’m going to stop you at your #### before you get carried away.



Skeeter literally just cited Netanyahu’s peace making “efforts”, so yes, someone did. Not sure you’re selling him the way you think you are by suggesting he only attempts to make life in Gaza better when there is international pressure to do so.



Sure, settlers are just provocative and unfriendly.

If you’re actually willing to read something and expand your limited worldview on this topic, try this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/m...-impunity.html

I know, it doesn’t paint ultranationalists as the pesky little rascals that are being unfairly criticized for ulterior motives, but maybe you’ll learn something.

If you actually aren’t evasive, that is.

Would you state that groups of people are just evil as a whole?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Would you state that groups of people are just evil as a whole?

We already did this big guy, and you embarrassed yourself then, too. So please, don’t start. Be an adult and read the article. Educate yourself.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, by your logic, I’m supposed to infer that when you say “Israelis” you’re not referring to all Israelis, but when I point to specific Israelis that disprove your generalization (including a member of the government), I’m actually the one inferring that they’re representative of all Israelis?

That uhhh, makes perfect sense I guess. Sure.

Do you ever get tired of just straight up having zero idea what you’re talking about and expecting nobody here to catch on? Like, do you think everyone else is stupid, or is this a you-issue where you actually believe the stuff you say?

It’s just fascinating that you consistently position yourself as knowing better than the Israeli government on the intents and beliefs of the Israeli government. Like, sure, “ah wah extremists don’t count! settlers don’t count! these aren’t real Israelis blah blah blah” but I’ve given you quotes from the Prime Minister that disprove the stuff you make up and you just keep trucking, so I get the sense it doesn’t actually matter who said what. Kind of amazing tbh.

Or don’t. I’m sure you’re busy not being evasive.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We already did this big guy, and you embarrassed yourself then, too. So please, don’t start. Be an adult and read the article. Educate yourself.



Or don’t. I’m sure you’re busy not being evasive.

Do you believe that children inherit the sins of their parents?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

Do you believe that children inherit the sins of their parents?

Haha! Holy ####, so the sins of this theft can just be washed away in a generation. It's that easy! I knew they were playing the long game, but this is such a fascinating angle.


I also noticed you didn't acknowledge that they are illegal. just "provocative, unfriendly and a severe barrier to any peace plan." Do you recognize they are illegal?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by blankall

Would you state that groups of people are just evil as a whole?

Some. Yes.
Like the Nazis.
And West Bank Settlers to name a couple.
Not similar in evilness but each evil in its own way.

Would you agree?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Some. Yes.
Like the Nazis.
And West Bank Settlers to name a couple.
Not similar in evilness but each evil in its own way.

Would you agree?

The Nazis were a political party not a population of people. In fact, what made the Nazis evil was their definition of entire populations of people as evil and/or lesser.

[Zary's-Mustache]

They are just sitting in our home, tormenting us, harassing us, doing everything they can to not only force us to leave the second half of our home but also harassing our neighbours into leaving their homes as part of an effort to completely annihilate the presence of Palestinians from Jerusalem,” Mohammed said, who was 11 years old when the settlers forced their way in.

Last March, the Israeli district court in occupied East Jerusalem ratified orders for six Palestinian families – the al-Kurds included – in Sheikh Jarrah to vacate their homes in order to make way for the settlers. The same court also ruled that another seven families should leave their homes by August 1.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.alj...h-settler-says

"If I don't steal it, someone else will"

Only democracy in the middle east ladies and gentlemen.

[Skootenbeeten]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think you need to reread what I wrote, I was saying Palestinians desires, the reason they refused the deals, was reasonable and understandable but that each offer was (and is) the best of a ####ty deal they would ever get, that each time they held out for more they lost even more.

If you offered Palestinians right now the deal they quite reasonably refused in 1967 as not being enough they would think they died and went to heaven, whatever deal they are offered by Israel at the end of this cycle of violence will both be awful and also the best deal Palestinians will get, and once again I would lay money they will refuse it and their lives, their kids and grandkids lives will be a grim violent and poor.

There is no happy ending for Palestine, they will get no more than Israel wants to give them because while their resistance is annoying to Israel, Oct the 7th was even horrific, it isn't close to bad enough to change Israels policy, Israel is utterly in charge of what happens, they get to choose how much they give, they will give something to keep the US and Europe happy but it will be minimal, this isnt fair to Gaza or the West Bank but life is never fair

They have refused every single peace deal so far over almost 100 years, blaming it on one person or one excuse is out the window. You don't get to start violent conflict after violent conflict and still play victim. You don't get to commit suicide bombings for almost 30 years and still claim you want peace.



I agree the pattern will continue, they started this conflict, they are now suffering the blowback of starting a war and then they will reject a peace offer and when Israel stops Palestine will go right back to planning their next attack. It doesn't matter what Israel offers because Palestine will accept nothing but everything.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Do you believe that children inherit the sins of their parents?

Do you know how to read the article I posted? Or are you going to continue being hyper focused on the children here knowing that nobody was remotely blaming a toddler for being an ultranationalist settler?

Originally Posted by blankall

The Nazis were a political party not a population of people. In fact, what made the Nazis evil was their definition of entire populations of people as evil and/or lesser.

Do you, personally, believe the Nazi’s were evil?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Nazis were a political party not a population of people. In fact, what made the Nazis evil was their definition of entire populations of people as evil and/or lesser.

They were a "group of people" as you stated. Just like the West Bank Settlers.

Thank you for pointing out a similarity between the two groups.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.alj...h-settler-says

"If I don't steal it, someone else will"

Only democracy in the middle east ladies and gentlemen.

And like Donald Trump, even when facts are right in front of them, posters in this thread will insist nothing was ever stolen, it was bought legitimately, the Palestinians left it behind, only Palestinians stand in the way of the peace process, and Israel treats Arabs better than any other country in the ME, so shut up already.


I've asked it before, but is there any surprise Palestinians are wary of any deal Israel supports? Like, you'd kind of have to be a pretty big rube at this point to trust them in any good faith negotiation, right?

[Makarov]

My unsolicited two cents: I think debate in this thread (and elsewhere) would be more productive and respectful if people distinguished between Israelis and the Israeli state (on the one hand) and Palestinians and Hamas/the Palestinian "state" (on the other hand). It is very difficult to generalize about Israelis and Palestinians. In both cases, I imagine (I'm hardly an expert) that there is a wide spectrum of opposition to and support of their respective "states".

[Fuzz]

Last March, the Israeli district court in occupied East Jerusalem ratified orders for six Palestinian families – the al-Kurds included – in Sheikh Jarrah to vacate their homes in order to make way for the settlers. The same court also ruled that another seven families should leave their homes by August 1.

On Sunday, Israel’s Supreme Court postponed its ruling regarding these families who threatened with displacement from their homes in favour of mostly private US-funded settler organisations. The court gave the families until Thursday to reach an “agreement” with the settlers, which is based on paying the settlers rent and recognising them as the landlords of their own homes.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...h-settler-says

Forcible transfer entails consequences including the abandonment of one’s home and possessions and potentially losing one’s rights in the property. Whereas deportation requires the displacement of persons across a national border, forcible transfer may take place within national boundaries or the occupied territory. The seriousness of this act is emphasized by the inclusion and categorization of forcible transfer as a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court qualifies forcible transfer as a war crime, and additionally, as a crime against humanity when carried out as part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population.

The forcible nature of deportation or eviction is not limited to physical force, but may encompass threat of force or coercion. The act of deportation or forcible transfer is prohibited, irrespective of the motive and the purpose of such displacement. Even the fact that an eviction or deportation order is issued pursuant to judicial proceedings is irrelevant to this rule.


In summary thus far: Based on the principle of inalienability of sovereignty through the use of force, the law of occupation reflects the supposedly temporary nature of occupation and prohibits the occupying power from acquiring sovereignty through annexation or introducing new laws unnecessary for the preservation of public life and order of protected persons. In addition, the law of occupation contains a set of specific rules compelling the occupying power to refrain from committing forcible transfer, making demographic changes in the occupied territory and harming property rights of protected persons, except in very specific
circumstances.

https://www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/...-jerusalem.pdf

So essentially the Israeli courts are cool to authorize and enforce war crimes. This is a great background, and if any lawyers want to read section 4, it explains what laws are being broken, and how the Geneva Conventions prevent legally taking land through war, it can only be done with a peace treaty. Which is why shrugging your shoulders and saying countries have done this for millennia no longer applies. For anyone interested in the history, this looks to be a good neutral document well supported with references.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...h-settler-says

https://www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/...-jerusalem.pdf

So essentially the Israeli courts are cool to authorize and enforce war crimes. This is a great background, and if any lawyers want to read section 4, it explains what laws are being broken, and how the Geneva Conventions prevent legally taking land through war, it can only be done with a peace treaty. Which is why shrugging your shoulders and saying countries have done this for millennia no longer applies. For anyone interested in the history, this looks to be a good neutral document well supported with references.

They don't own the homes.

The courts determined that the land was owned by Jews. When Jordan invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, they forcibly removed all Jews and took all their land. The land was given to wealthy Jordanian landlords, but occupied by Palestinians.

When Israel regained control of the land, they returned ownership to the Jewish residents, who made a deal with the occupying Palestinians, that they could stay as long as they paid rent. Over seventy years later they stopped paying rent, and the owners sought to evict.

This started a decades long court case. The Palestinians argued that Israel could not enforce it's laws there, and the Jordanian confiscations should stand.

Do you not know the details or just choose to leave them out?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

They don't own the homes.

The courts determined that the land was owned by Jews. When Jordan invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, they forcibly removed all Jews and took all their land. The land was given to wealthy Jordanian landlords, but occupied by Palestinians.


When Israel regained control of the land, they returned ownership to the Jewish residents, who made a deal with the occupying Palestinians, that they could stay as long as they paid rent. Over seventy years later they stopped paying rent, and the owners sought to evict.

None of this is legitimate. "Regained control"? When? It's an occupied territory, they don't have the right to do that. They have made up the rules of the game, and you just accept that, despite the rest of the world and every honest court in the land disagreeing with them.

Originally Posted by blankall

This started a decades long court case. The Palestinians argued that Israel could not enforce it's laws there, and the Jordanian confiscations should stand.

Do you not know the details or just choose to leave them out?

And they are correct. Read the pdf I posted(please, please!), you'll get a good overview of all the ways Israel is committing war crimes, contravening the Geneva convention, and generally being awful to people while trampling on their rights, along with a history of the land.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

None of this is legitimate. "Regained control"? When? It's an occupied territory, they don't have the right to do that. They have made up the rules of the game, and you just accept that, despite the rest of the world and every honest court in the land disagreeing with them.

And they are correct. Read the pdf I posted(please, please!), you'll get a good overview of all the ways Israel is committing war crimes, contravening the Geneva convention, and generally being awful to people while trampling on their rights, along with a history of the land.

They didn't make up the rules. It was a war, that was initiated by the Arabs.

The Arabs forcibly took the land and expelled all Jews in 1948, but then lost that land to Israel's control in 1967.


You're telling me the only interpretation of the law that isn't a war crime is for Israel to enforce Jordan's expulsion of it's own Jewish citizens? BTW Jordan also annexed the land, which meant that it was not taken from Palestinians even, but Jordan.

This was land in East Jerusalem, that, prior to Jordan's invasion, the UN had stated would be part of an international city and all existing Jewish land ownership rights would stand. The Ottoman Empire and British mandate had legally acknowledged the Jewish land ownership. So it's literally just Jordan's expulsion of Jews that resulted in the original rightful owners losing the land.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

They didn't make up the rules. It was a war, that was initiated by the Arabs.

The Arabs forcibly took the land and expelled all Jews in 1948, but then lost that land to Israel's control in 1967.


You're telling me the only interpretation of the law that isn't a war crime is for Israel to enforce Jordan's expulsion of it's own Jewish citizens? BTW Jordan also annexed the land, which meant that it was not taken from Palestinians even, but Jordan.

This was land in East Jerusalem, that, prior to Jordan's invasion, the UN had stated would be part of an international city and all existing Jewish land ownership rights would stand. The Ottoman Empire and British mandate had legally acknowledged the Jewish land ownership. So it's literally just Jordan's expulsion of Jews that resulted in the original rightful owners losing the land.

That's... a way of looking at it, I guess. Do you view East Jerusalem as part of Israel, or an occupied territory?

[_Q_]

Wait blankall, do you believe Palestine was inhabited mostly by Jews when Israel was created? Do you think that in 1967 Israel just came and restored legitimate Jewish ownership of Jerusalem? Or is this restoring a 2000 year old claim that you're referring to?

[PepsiFree]

Hard to imagine actually believing Israeli settlers are just taking back what is theirs when 1,500~ were expelled or fled East Jerusalem, while 30,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from West Jerusalem and over 700,000 Palestinians saw the same fate in the State of Israel.

If we’re arbitrarily picking points in time to determine ownership, do Palestinians have the right to take their land back?