Israel invaded
Discussion
isaldiri said:
Electro1980 said:
s1962a said:
Nothing to see here. Israel is allowing all the aid through - it's Hamas that is not distributing it.
The lorries parked up at the border waiting to get through are just a ploy by Hamas to make Israel look bad.
There is no hunger crisis in Gaza and the Israel military are not to blame in any way. Any crticism of Israel could be deemed anti semitic.
The commercial port of Ashdod can't be used to bring aid in because.. err.. it just can't. Lorries can queue up at the border or our allies can airdrop aid.
Israels allies are mistaken when they blame Israel for not looking after the Gaza citizens, and when the UN says there is a hunger crisis and potential war crimes, well thats the UN, who are they anyway to say anything about Israel?
Did I miss anything?
You missed “anything you can prove the IDF are doing is all Hamas’s fault anyway”.The lorries parked up at the border waiting to get through are just a ploy by Hamas to make Israel look bad.
There is no hunger crisis in Gaza and the Israel military are not to blame in any way. Any crticism of Israel could be deemed anti semitic.
The commercial port of Ashdod can't be used to bring aid in because.. err.. it just can't. Lorries can queue up at the border or our allies can airdrop aid.
Israels allies are mistaken when they blame Israel for not looking after the Gaza citizens, and when the UN says there is a hunger crisis and potential war crimes, well thats the UN, who are they anyway to say anything about Israel?
Did I miss anything?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/world/middleeas...
Jinx said:
Electro1980 said:
Hamas are not to blame for Israel killing civilians. Even the US is taking that position now, yet people are still willing to deny any culpability on the part of Israel.
Hamas are to blame for using civilians as human shields. Hamas are to blame for kicking the hornets nest by barbarically murdering civilians on the 7th October. Hamas are to blame for murdering their fellow Palestinians who happened not to support Hamas. Hamas are to blame for spending aid money on weapons and building military structures under and around civilian structures. Hamas are to blame for taking hostages and not releasing them. Hamas are to blame for deliberately extending this war by not releasing the hostages.“Hamas are to blame for kicking the hornets nest” and the same could be said for Israel’s failure to deal with settlers. But that is all irrelevant to Israel killing civilians today.
s1962a said:
JJJ. said:
s1962a said:
Nothing to see here. Israel is allowing all the aid through - it's Hamas that is not distributing it.
The lorries parked up at the border waiting to get through are just a ploy by Hamas to make Israel look bad.
There is no hunger crisis in Gaza and the Israel military are not to blame in any way. Any crticism of Israel could be deemed anti semitic.
The commercial port of Ashdod can't be used to bring aid in because.. err.. it just can't. Lorries can queue up at the border or our allies can airdrop aid.
Israels allies are mistaken when they blame Israel for not looking after the Gaza citizens, and when the UN says there is a hunger crisis and potential war crimes, well thats the UN, who are they anyway to say anything about Israel?
Did I miss anything?
The lorries parked up at the border waiting to get through are just a ploy by Hamas to make Israel look bad.
There is no hunger crisis in Gaza and the Israel military are not to blame in any way. Any crticism of Israel could be deemed anti semitic.
The commercial port of Ashdod can't be used to bring aid in because.. err.. it just can't. Lorries can queue up at the border or our allies can airdrop aid.
Israels allies are mistaken when they blame Israel for not looking after the Gaza citizens, and when the UN says there is a hunger crisis and potential war crimes, well thats the UN, who are they anyway to say anything about Israel?
Did I miss anything?
You certainly can give Eylon Levy a run for his money. Well done as I didn't think it was possible!
Edited by JJJ. on Thursday 28th March 11:39
Edited by JJJ. on Thursday 28th March 11:40
Electro1980 said:
Hamas are not to blame for Israel killing civilians. Even the US is taking that position now, yet people are still willing to deny any culpability on the part of Israel.
Yes they areThe protection afforded to civilian structures, such as hospitals, only exists so long as they are not being used for military purposes. Once an army bases itself deliberately among the civilian population then the defence afforded to civilians is defined by proportionality. This states that even if there is a clear military target it is not possible to attack it if the expected harm to civilians, or civilian property, is excessive in relation to the expected military advantage.
Proportionality doesn't mean, as some seem to think, that you can kill as many of the other side as you have lost.
So we return once again to the disputed casualty figures as our indicator of proportionality. With Israeli claims of over 10K Hamas fighters killed, more seriously wounded and a few thousand captured. With different claims from Hamas and no real way to fully verify either claim without digging up every grave or collapsed tunnel or building.
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
Presumably because another genocidal death cult would spring up in their place?
You’re the ones who believe the land was given to the jews by God so its ok to take it. Bit culty wouldnt you say? And a bit genocidal, full house.F1GTRUeno said:
youngsyr said:
So what exactly are you saying they should have done?
Gone knocking door to door, lost umpteen thousands of IDF members in ambushes and IED booby traps and perhaps recovered a few hostages and Hamas soldiers, only then to withdraw back to Israel and the status quo?
That's your solution?
As I said, brilliant. Well done.
So because you don't like other options it's completely fine to completely decimate a group of people and commit genocide, brilliant, well done.Gone knocking door to door, lost umpteen thousands of IDF members in ambushes and IED booby traps and perhaps recovered a few hostages and Hamas soldiers, only then to withdraw back to Israel and the status quo?
That's your solution?
As I said, brilliant. Well done.
Nor are they decimating a group of people, unless you want to redefine that term too?
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
Presumably because another genocidal death cult would spring up in their place?
You’re the ones who believe the land was given to the jews by God so its ok to take it. Bit culty wouldnt you say? And a bit genocidal, full house.fizz47 said:
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
Presumably because another genocidal death cult would spring up in their place?
You’re the ones who believe the land was given to the jews by God so its ok to take it. Bit culty wouldnt you say? And a bit genocidal, full house.You'll need to define your version of "subjugation" before I can respond, as clearly words don't mean what they used to in these parts.
s1962a said:
All the while the glorious IDF soldiers are documenting their escapades
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/world/middleeas...
Paywalled...https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/world/middleeas...
Electro1980 said:
Israel is to blame for the IDF killing civilians. Everything else is irrelevant.
“Hamas are to blame for kicking the hornets nest” and the same could be said for Israel’s failure to deal with settlers. But that is all irrelevant to Israel killing civilians today.
For killing the civilians Hamas are hiding behind - yes they are to blame, but Hamas could easily stop it by not hiding behind them.“Hamas are to blame for kicking the hornets nest” and the same could be said for Israel’s failure to deal with settlers. But that is all irrelevant to Israel killing civilians today.
youngsyr said:
skwdenyer said:
youngsyr said:
skwdenyer said:
Police Action in this context means occupying territory to enforce order and attempt to find perpetrators, not obliterating whole cities. Going street by street. Even we did that in Afghanistan.
So your answer is to follow exactly the same tactics that failed to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?Absolutely brilliant. Well done.
The solution has to be political in the end. The only thing a “police action” might have achieved was to round up some of the October invaders and find some hostages. But you can’t realistically aim for much more than that.
Gone knocking door to door, lost umpteen thousands of IDF members in ambushes and IED booby traps and perhaps recovered a few hostages and Hamas soldiers, only then to withdraw back to Israel and the status quo?
That's your solution?
As I said, brilliant. Well done.
Just because Likud wished to wash their hands of Gaza (“disengagement”) without a proper settlement doesn’t change their responsibilities towards the people there.
I get that you don’t like it. But what else is acceptable for a modern state? As I say, would carpet bombing Belfast have been reasonable? It may come as a surprise to you to learn the British Government was negotiating with the IRA, say, from the very early 1970s. Every time “reactionaries” held power in Westminster, progress was halted; when talking resumed, peace was achieved.
The very nature of Israel means it has been incumbent upon them to find political solutions to the problems inherent in the birth of the modern state. The problems are very similar to those in, say, post-colonial Africa, where artificial state lines were imposed on disparate groups of people by western powers. The post-colonial chaos of that region is well understood. If you impose the will of one group over many groups, this is what you get; it is a long, long road to peace, requiring considerable effort and compromise.
That right wing reactionaries deliberately stymied and undermined attempts at a settlement for political gain is relevant, but doesn’t magically absolve Israel of responsibility for what happens in its own borders.
Israel has a right to exist. Israel doesn’t have a right to exist in peace regardless of its actions.
I know that some will talk of the “victory” over Islamic State as evidence that this strategy of massive military force can work. But those situations aren’t the same. IS by and large was an occupying force, me that whilst supported by some zealots didn’t have the support of people on the ground. It ruled by fear, and was ultimately defeatable. Hamas and Gaza are different. Israel is the occupying force; Hamas the (ironically Israeli-supported) “resistance” movement. Would it have been reasonable for the UK to carpet bomb Afghan cities as punishment for resistance? How about Germany flattening Paris during WW2 whilst in occupation?
We have international law and norms for a reason, to prevent precisely the things Israel seems now to be doing. Many of those legal changes were introduced precisely because of the atrocities against Jewish people by Germany.
And many of those changes, yes, also prohibited tactics used by the British Empire. The RAF was effectively founded to bomb militant resistance Kurdish hill settlements over 100 years ago. We are not innocent. But just because we did something >100 year ago, and Germany did something a little later, doesn’t allow Israel to simply ride a coach and horses through modern norms.
Nor, incidentally, does it excuse other regimes. Rather than invading Iraq, we should have been arguably getting involved in other conflicts as peacekeepers. But that’s another thread.
I *know* many Israelis live in fear. I *fully* accept that the October attacks were horrific, inexcusable atrocities. But I don’t accept that Israel is the wholly innocent party, nor that it’s recent (especially) actions haven’t made the problem a whole lot worse. The faux righteousness of many Israeli politicians is frankly appalling; modern Israel has no greater or lesser moral reason to sidestep norms of civilised behaviour than anyone else.
skwdenyer said:
youngsyr said:
skwdenyer said:
youngsyr said:
skwdenyer said:
Police Action in this context means occupying territory to enforce order and attempt to find perpetrators, not obliterating whole cities. Going street by street. Even we did that in Afghanistan.
So your answer is to follow exactly the same tactics that failed to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?Absolutely brilliant. Well done.
The solution has to be political in the end. The only thing a “police action” might have achieved was to round up some of the October invaders and find some hostages. But you can’t realistically aim for much more than that.
Gone knocking door to door, lost umpteen thousands of IDF members in ambushes and IED booby traps and perhaps recovered a few hostages and Hamas soldiers, only then to withdraw back to Israel and the status quo?
That's your solution?
As I said, brilliant. Well done.
Just because Likud wished to wash their hands of Gaza (“disengagement”) without a proper settlement doesn’t change their responsibilities towards the people there.
I get that you don’t like it. But what else is acceptable for a modern state? As I say, would carpet bombing Belfast have been reasonable? It may come as a surprise to you to learn the British Government was negotiating with the IRA, say, from the very early 1970s. Every time “reactionaries” held power in Westminster, progress was halted; when talking resumed, peace was achieved.
The very nature of Israel means it has been incumbent upon them to find political solutions to the problems inherent in the birth of the modern state. The problems are very similar to those in, say, post-colonial Africa, where artificial state lines were imposed on disparate groups of people by western powers. The post-colonial chaos of that region is well understood. If you impose the will of one group over many groups, this is what you get; it is a long, long road to peace, requiring considerable effort and compromise.
That right wing reactionaries deliberately stymied and undermined attempts at a settlement for political gain is relevant, but doesn’t magically absolve Israel of responsibility for what happens in its own borders.
Israel has a right to exist. Israel doesn’t have a right to exist in peace regardless of its actions.
I know that some will talk of the “victory” over Islamic State as evidence that this strategy of massive military force can work. But those situations aren’t the same. IS by and large was an occupying force, me that whilst supported by some zealots didn’t have the support of people on the ground. It ruled by fear, and was ultimately defeatable. Hamas and Gaza are different. Israel is the occupying force; Hamas the (ironically Israeli-supported) “resistance” movement. Would it have been reasonable for the UK to carpet bomb Afghan cities as punishment for resistance? How about Germany flattening Paris during WW2 whilst in occupation?
We have international law and norms for a reason, to prevent precisely the things Israel seems now to be doing. Many of those legal changes were introduced precisely because of the atrocities against Jewish people by Germany.
And many of those changes, yes, also prohibited tactics used by the British Empire. The RAF was effectively founded to bomb militant resistance Kurdish hill settlements over 100 years ago. We are not innocent. But just because we did something >100 year ago, and Germany did something a little later, doesn’t allow Israel to simply ride a coach and horses through modern norms.
Nor, incidentally, does it excuse other regimes. Rather than invading Iraq, we should have been arguably getting involved in other conflicts as peacekeepers. But that’s another thread.
I *know* many Israelis live in fear. I *fully* accept that the October attacks were horrific, inexcusable atrocities. But I don’t accept that Israel is the wholly innocent party, nor that it’s recent (especially) actions haven’t made the problem a whole lot worse. The faux righteousness of many Israeli politicians is frankly appalling; modern Israel has no greater or lesser moral reason to sidestep norms of civilised behaviour than anyone else.
Where is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
youngsyr said:
skwdenyer said:
youngsyr said:
skwdenyer said:
youngsyr said:
skwdenyer said:
Police Action in this context means occupying territory to enforce order and attempt to find perpetrators, not obliterating whole cities. Going street by street. Even we did that in Afghanistan.
So your answer is to follow exactly the same tactics that failed to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?Absolutely brilliant. Well done.
The solution has to be political in the end. The only thing a “police action” might have achieved was to round up some of the October invaders and find some hostages. But you can’t realistically aim for much more than that.
Gone knocking door to door, lost umpteen thousands of IDF members in ambushes and IED booby traps and perhaps recovered a few hostages and Hamas soldiers, only then to withdraw back to Israel and the status quo?
That's your solution?
As I said, brilliant. Well done.
Just because Likud wished to wash their hands of Gaza (“disengagement”) without a proper settlement doesn’t change their responsibilities towards the people there.
I get that you don’t like it. But what else is acceptable for a modern state? As I say, would carpet bombing Belfast have been reasonable? It may come as a surprise to you to learn the British Government was negotiating with the IRA, say, from the very early 1970s. Every time “reactionaries” held power in Westminster, progress was halted; when talking resumed, peace was achieved.
The very nature of Israel means it has been incumbent upon them to find political solutions to the problems inherent in the birth of the modern state. The problems are very similar to those in, say, post-colonial Africa, where artificial state lines were imposed on disparate groups of people by western powers. The post-colonial chaos of that region is well understood. If you impose the will of one group over many groups, this is what you get; it is a long, long road to peace, requiring considerable effort and compromise.
That right wing reactionaries deliberately stymied and undermined attempts at a settlement for political gain is relevant, but doesn’t magically absolve Israel of responsibility for what happens in its own borders.
Israel has a right to exist. Israel doesn’t have a right to exist in peace regardless of its actions.
I know that some will talk of the “victory” over Islamic State as evidence that this strategy of massive military force can work. But those situations aren’t the same. IS by and large was an occupying force, me that whilst supported by some zealots didn’t have the support of people on the ground. It ruled by fear, and was ultimately defeatable. Hamas and Gaza are different. Israel is the occupying force; Hamas the (ironically Israeli-supported) “resistance” movement. Would it have been reasonable for the UK to carpet bomb Afghan cities as punishment for resistance? How about Germany flattening Paris during WW2 whilst in occupation?
We have international law and norms for a reason, to prevent precisely the things Israel seems now to be doing. Many of those legal changes were introduced precisely because of the atrocities against Jewish people by Germany.
And many of those changes, yes, also prohibited tactics used by the British Empire. The RAF was effectively founded to bomb militant resistance Kurdish hill settlements over 100 years ago. We are not innocent. But just because we did something >100 year ago, and Germany did something a little later, doesn’t allow Israel to simply ride a coach and horses through modern norms.
Nor, incidentally, does it excuse other regimes. Rather than invading Iraq, we should have been arguably getting involved in other conflicts as peacekeepers. But that’s another thread.
I *know* many Israelis live in fear. I *fully* accept that the October attacks were horrific, inexcusable atrocities. But I don’t accept that Israel is the wholly innocent party, nor that it’s recent (especially) actions haven’t made the problem a whole lot worse. The faux righteousness of many Israeli politicians is frankly appalling; modern Israel has no greater or lesser moral reason to sidestep norms of civilised behaviour than anyone else.
Where is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
Gazan support for Hamas needs to be understood through that lens. And also, frankly, the fact that Israel encouraged and supported funding for Hamas rather destroys the narrative. Hamas didn’t ascend despite Israel…
How do you feel about Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the Eastern rump of Ukraine? Putin - and many Russian people, it seems - believe that land is theirs by historical right. Should any pockets of Ukrainian resistance be punished by carpet bombing cities already occupied by Russia? Should “we” sit back and say that Russia has a right to exist peacefully, that it should be allowed to decide it’s own borders, that it’s claims have legitimacy because they are deeply held beliefs (or delusions - take your pick)? Should “we” be sending weapons not to Ukraine, but to Russia, to help them stamp out the intolerable opposition of ill-conceived freedom-fighters and resistance movements?
It really isn’t that simple. The general principle that has stood the world in relatively good stead has been that of allowing peoples a right of self-determination. The Ukrainian people voted for a regime Russia didn’t like - so what? If Israel had genuinely held to the UN mandate, and created two states, we would at least be there. But they didn’t.
You mention the Taliban. Why was it our business to defeat them? What was the objective? They aren’t attacking us. They are in fact the descendants of resistance fighters we funded to eject the USSR. Would I like for Afghanistan to become a liberal democracy? Yes. Do I think we could ever achieve that by force? Of course not. The Taliban is a wholly pointless example, because it has no bearing other than to remind us that resistance movements are impossible to defeat!
Because Israel is the occupying force. Gaza is not an independent country.
The rights of other Israel civilians are not more important than the rights of Gazan civilians. Until everyone accepts that we’re stuck going around in circles. You don’t seem to accept that.
As for targeted munitions? LOL. If you launch enough of them, the effect is indistinguishable from carpet bombing. As we can see.
youngsyr said:
That's all well and good, but none of it takes into account that Hamas is a genocidal death cult that has won power legitimately and has the support of the majoirty of its population and has sworn to wipe Israel off the map.
Where is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
You're so wrong it is laughable. Hamas didnt win the 2006 election legitimately. In fact the external monitoring of the election counted over 200 instances of interferring by both hamas and fatah. In addition there was widespread condemnation of the result because hamas had ignored the sanctity of voting venues and were heavily tooled up to make sure people voted for them. Despite this horrible environment of coercion and violence they only won with 44% of the votes cast. Furthermore Israel interfered heavily with voting in East Jerusalem and in the wider region to stop many palestinians being able to vote at all. So your assertion is bWhere is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
ks straight out of the zionist propaganda handbook.Edited by M1AGM on Thursday 28th March 15:02
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
That's all well and good, but none of it takes into account that Hamas is a genocidal death cult that has won power legitimately and has the support of the majoirty of its population and has sworn to wipe Israel off the map.
Where is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
You're so wrong it is laughable. Hamas didnt win the 2006 election legitimately. In fact the external monitoring of the election counted over 200 instances of interferring by both hamas and fatah. In addition there was widespread condemnation of the result because hamas had ignored the sanctity of voting venues and were heavily tooled up to make sure people voted for them. Despite this horrible environment of coercion and violence they only won with 44% of the votes cast. Furthermore Israel interfered heavily with voting in East Jerusalem and in the wider region to stop many palestinians being able to vote at all. So your assertion is bWhere is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
ks straight out of the zionist propaganda handbook.Edited by M1AGM on Thursday 28th March 15:02
Wikipedia said:
The National Democratic Institute (NDI) in partnership with The Carter Center reported "a professional and impartial performance of election officials".[33]
The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34]
A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections.
The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34]
A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections.
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
Presumably because another genocidal death cult would spring up in their place?
You’re the ones who believe the land was given to the jews by God so its ok to take it. Bit culty wouldnt you say? And a bit genocidal, full house.ICJ has indicated additional provisional measures against Israel today..
The Court observes that, since 26 January 2024, “the catastrophic living conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have deteriorated further, in particular in view of the prolonged and widespread deprivation of food and other basic necessities to which the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have been subjected”, and that “Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing only a risk of famine, as noted in the Order of 26 January 2024, but that famine is setting in”.
The Court Ordered:
It reaffirmed the 26 January 2024 measures
in view or worsening conditions including spread of famine and starvation orders the State of Israel:
to take effective measures in cooperation with the UN to provide urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance including food water, electricity, fuel... as well as medical supplies and medical care.
to ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance
to submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.
The Court observes that, since 26 January 2024, “the catastrophic living conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have deteriorated further, in particular in view of the prolonged and widespread deprivation of food and other basic necessities to which the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have been subjected”, and that “Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing only a risk of famine, as noted in the Order of 26 January 2024, but that famine is setting in”.
The Court Ordered:
It reaffirmed the 26 January 2024 measures
in view or worsening conditions including spread of famine and starvation orders the State of Israel:
to take effective measures in cooperation with the UN to provide urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance including food water, electricity, fuel... as well as medical supplies and medical care.
to ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit acts which constitute a violation of any of the rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance
to submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.
soupdragon1 said:
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
Presumably because another genocidal death cult would spring up in their place?
You’re the ones who believe the land was given to the jews by God so its ok to take it. Bit culty wouldnt you say? And a bit genocidal, full house.youngsyr said:
M1AGM said:
youngsyr said:
That's all well and good, but none of it takes into account that Hamas is a genocidal death cult that has won power legitimately and has the support of the majoirty of its population and has sworn to wipe Israel off the map.
Where is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
You're so wrong it is laughable. Hamas didnt win the 2006 election legitimately. In fact the external monitoring of the election counted over 200 instances of interferring by both hamas and fatah. In addition there was widespread condemnation of the result because hamas had ignored the sanctity of voting venues and were heavily tooled up to make sure people voted for them. Despite this horrible environment of coercion and violence they only won with 44% of the votes cast. Furthermore Israel interfered heavily with voting in East Jerusalem and in the wider region to stop many palestinians being able to vote at all. So your assertion is bWhere is the compromise from their side?
I would argue the reasons that in the past other nations have behaved similarly to Israel currently is that there was no other option.
You couldn't negotiate with the Nazis. They had to be toppled by invasion, total destruction of dozens of cities, with significant civilian deaths.
You couldn't negotiate with the Japanese. They had to be toppled by nuclear weapons killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wiping two entire cities off the map.
You couldn't negotiate with the Taliban. We were reserved in our attacks and they eventually won.
There was no other option then, there is no other option now if Israel want to live in peace (at least from Hamas). At least now Israel are using targetted tactics and precision weapons rather than levelling entire cities in bombing attacks.
ks straight out of the zionist propaganda handbook.Edited by M1AGM on Thursday 28th March 15:02
Wikipedia said:
The National Democratic Institute (NDI) in partnership with The Carter Center reported "a professional and impartial performance of election officials".[33]
The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34]
A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections.
The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34]
A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections.
And on the same page you quoted from:
Although, the observers reported, Hamas had an advantage in mobilizing Palestinian facilities for its own political purposes."[36] Violating the code of conduct, Hamas was able to use its militias and networks for propaganda and intimidation purposes, as well as heavily utilizing mosques for that purpose.[37] A national monitoring committee set up by the Arab Thought Forum recorded reports of 242 violations in total throughout the election. The Canadian International Development Agency reported that international observers were concerned "about the threat that widespread possession of arms poses to the future of the democratic electoral process." The threat of violence affected the conduct of the election, culminating in a few violent confrontations and undermining the independence of the Central Election Commission.
M1AGM said:
You're so wrong it is laughable. Hamas didnt win the 2006 election legitimately. In fact the external monitoring of the election counted over 200 instances of interferring by both hamas and fatah. In addition there was widespread condemnation of the result because hamas had ignored the sanctity of voting venues and were heavily tooled up to make sure people voted for them. Despite this horrible environment of coercion and violence they only won with 44% of the votes cast. Furthermore Israel interfered heavily with voting in East Jerusalem and in the wider region to stop many palestinians being able to vote at all. So your assertion is bks straight out of the zionist propaganda handbook.
You probably are going to be hard put to call the 2006 election illegitimately won by Hamas. the population was utterly fed up by the hopelessly corrupt Fatah administration and were entirely content to have someone else (and especially someone else who had adroitly directed some of their funding into direct help which was rather more than Fatah had managed) come in. History has since shown that Fatah were equally happy to postpone elections in the west bank because they were terrified that Hamas would oust them so intimidation and interference isn't just one sided.ks straight out of the zionist propaganda handbook.Whether or not one then believes the gazan population deserves what it gets due to the misdeeds of Hamas though then depends on how far one supports Israeli actions I suppose (while cheerily ignoring the counter argument that israeli actions in the west bank are also a direct contributor to palestinian attacks....)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff