Israel invaded

[skyrover]

dukeboy749r said:

You are using a false equivalence.

Nazism was an ideology, whereas Palestinians are engaged in a fight for the right to exist.

I would say Hamas is utterly ideological, hence why it must be eliminated.

They are clearly willing to sacrifice the Palestinians to achieve their aim in good old Islamist tradition.

Edited by skyrover on Sunday 28th April 10:20

[JagLover]

dukeboy749r said:

You are using a false equivalence.

Nazism was an ideology, whereas Palestinians are engaged in a fight for the right to exist.

Hamas is motivated by an ideology. It is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and is motivated by similar Islamic Fundamentalist views to other organisations around the world.

Given the degree of violence that such groups are capable of then comparisons with the Nazis seem very appropriate.

[isaldiri]

Well.... the difference is that the germans were offered something better as a future by the allies after the nazis rather than a life of continuing misery and continued eviction from the areas they had lived in. Plus, the allies were the historic enemies of the germans and had proclaimed their divine right to rule unchalleneged from the north sea to the danube, it's debatable if killing civilians in largescale bombing sorties kike dresden would not indeed have pushed far more people to being nazis.

[JJJ.]

fizz47 said:

As I said- sick in the head people defending the indefensible ..literally 1000s of videos and testimonies of the atrocities happening which didn’t just start in October and people making excuses

Standard response appears to be to attack people with false charges of ‘fake news’ or anti-semitism. Donald trump would be proud..

What else can they do? To keep the Zionist 'movement' going it means stealing land, evictions, imprisonment, killings and continuously lying. And when that's not enough they go the genocide path.
It's no wonder they haven't got a friendly country or ally in the region. Of course they consider themselves 'special' but it's not on religious grounds or historical grounds even if that's touted out regularly, the truth is, it's actually because they're supported by the U.S. in just about everyway possible.
Currently, there's never been a greater shift in US public and political opinion about Israel since Oct 7, never mind world opinion. Israel are actually on the back foot and worse have no plan going forward other than to continue with the same policies.
So, the world can expect more of the same.

Edited by JJJ. on Sunday 28th April 23:40

[Unreal]

isaldiri said:

Well.... the difference is that the germans were offered something better as a future by the allies after the nazis rather than a life of continuing misery and continued eviction from the areas they had lived in. Plus, the allies were the historic enemies of the germans and had proclaimed their divine right to rule unchalleneged from the north sea to the danube, it's debatable if killing civilians in largescale bombing sorties kike dresden would not indeed have pushed far more people to being nazis.

Isn't the prospect of a life without Hamas a better prospect for Palestinians? You know, one where women are equally represented, gay people accepted and political opponents can argue their case without being murdered.

There was no need to continue bombing Germany post Dresden and indeed it stopped when complete vuctory was certain and the Allies began to focus as much on the aftermath as winning the war.

This is what is likely to happen in Gaza. Hamas will be obliterated. Israel need to get on with it now. Anything else is prolonging the pain. Hamas can surrender and hand back the hostages if they want an immediate ceasefire but it's cosy in Qatar.

[911hope]

Unreal said:

Isn't the prospect of a life without Hamas a better prospect for Palestinians? You know, one where women are equally represented, gay people accepted and political opponents can argue their case without being murdered.

There was no need to continue bombing Germany post Dresden and indeed it stopped when complete vuctory was certain and the Allies began to focus as much on the aftermath as winning the war.

This is what is likely to happen in Gaza. Hamas will be obliterated. Israel need to get on with it now. Anything else is prolonging the pain. Hamas can surrender and hand back the hostages if they want an immediate ceasefire but it's cosy in Qatar.

What would surrender look like, to be certain that Israel would immediately cease killing people and starving the Gazan population?

Is there a number of Hamas soldiers that you have in mind? What defines surrender?

Are you really sure that Israel wants to stop the destruction of Gaza.

I know it is nice to repeat an argument previously heard, but has it been thought through.

[Unreal]

911hope said:

What would surrender look like, to be certain that Israel would immediately cease killing people and starving the Gazan population?

Is there a number of Hamas soldiers that you have in mind? What defines surrender?

Are you really sure that Israel wants to stop the destruction of Gaza.

I know it is nice to repeat an argument previously heard, but has it been thought through.

Unconditional surrender = laying down of all arms, handing control of all administration to Israel and perhaps a UN or other international peacekeeping force. Return of all the Israeli hostages. Ceasefire to apply to all sides.

I can't be sure of the future anymore than you can.

What is apparent is that the current situation isn't working out too well for Palestinians so they can either continue on the path to what looks like certain destruction, hope that something will stop that happening at some undetermined point in the future and continue fighting, or stop the killing by surrendering.

[911hope]

Unreal said:

Unconditional surrender = laying down of all arms, handing control of all administration to Israel and perhaps a UN or other international peacekeeping force. Return of all the Israeli hostages. Ceasefire to apply to all sides.

I can't be sure of the future anymore than you can.

What is apparent is that the current situation isn't working out too well for Palestinians so they can either continue on the path to what looks like certain destruction, hope that something will stop that happening at some undetermined point in the future and continue fighting, or stop the killing by surrendering.

So how many surrendering Hamas fighters will it take, to be accepted as complete?

While it is easy to knock up or copy a statement, the practical implementation is not that easy.

What stops Israel saying "that's not them all. ....here are some more bombs"

Edited by 911hope on Sunday 28th April 20:43

[Unreal]

911hope said:

Unreal said:

Unconditional surrender = laying down of all arms, handing control of all administration to Israel and perhaps a UN or other international peacekeeping force. Return of all the Israeli hostages. Ceasefire to apply to all sides.

I can't be sure of the future anymore than you can.

What is apparent is that the current situation isn't working out too well for Palestinians so they can either continue on the path to what looks like certain destruction, hope that something will stop that happening at some undetermined point in the future and continue fighting, or stop the killing by surrendering.

So how many surrendering Hamas fighters will it take, to be accepted as complete?

While it is easy to knock up or copy a statement, the practical implementation is not that easy.

What stops Israel saying "that's not them all. ....here are some more bombs"

Edited by 911hope on Sunday 28th April 20:43

Unconditional surrender is just that. The loser has no say in any conditions. It's up to Hamas - accept defeat or take responsibility for the death of thousands more of your citizens and simply delaying the inevitable.

[JJJ.]

Unreal said:

911hope said:

Unreal said:

Unconditional surrender = laying down of all arms, handing control of all administration to Israel and perhaps a UN or other international peacekeeping force. Return of all the Israeli hostages. Ceasefire to apply to all sides.

I can't be sure of the future anymore than you can.

What is apparent is that the current situation isn't working out too well for Palestinians so they can either continue on the path to what looks like certain destruction, hope that something will stop that happening at some undetermined point in the future and continue fighting, or stop the killing by surrendering.

So how many surrendering Hamas fighters will it take, to be accepted as complete?

While it is easy to knock up or copy a statement, the practical implementation is not that easy.

What stops Israel saying "that's not them all. ....here are some more bombs"

Edited by 911hope on Sunday 28th April 20:43

Unconditional surrender is just that. The loser has no say in any conditions. It's up to Hamas - accept defeat or take responsibility for the death of thousands more of your citizens and simply delaying the inevitable.

Who in their right mind would unconditionally surrender to Israel? Stop, with the ridiculousness. All you're doing is highlighting you're own naivety, stupidity or blatant bias towards Israel, while trying to reinforce that Israel's actions are justified, actions that go back decades.
I've read some pure pro Zionists rubbish on this thread but your post is up there with one of the worst. Congratulations.

[Unreal]

JJJ. said:

Unreal said:

911hope said:

Unreal said:

Unconditional surrender = laying down of all arms, handing control of all administration to Israel and perhaps a UN or other international peacekeeping force. Return of all the Israeli hostages. Ceasefire to apply to all sides.

I can't be sure of the future anymore than you can.

What is apparent is that the current situation isn't working out too well for Palestinians so they can either continue on the path to what looks like certain destruction, hope that something will stop that happening at some undetermined point in the future and continue fighting, or stop the killing by surrendering.

So how many surrendering Hamas fighters will it take, to be accepted as complete?

While it is easy to knock up or copy a statement, the practical implementation is not that easy.

What stops Israel saying "that's not them all. ....here are some more bombs"

Edited by 911hope on Sunday 28th April 20:43

Unconditional surrender is just that. The loser has no say in any conditions. It's up to Hamas - accept defeat or take responsibility for the death of thousands more of your citizens and simply delaying the inevitable.

Who in their right mind would unconditionally surrender to Israel? Stop, with the ridiculousness. All you're doing is highlighting you're own naivety, stupidity or blatant bias towards Israel, while trying to reinforce that Israel's actions are justified, actions that go back decades.
I've read some pure pro Zionists rubbish on this thread but your post is up there with one of the worst. Congratulations.

Someone who wants to stop the killing immediately and has it in their power to do so?

As I said, what is apparent is that the current situation isn't working for Palestinians. They can therefore either continue on the path to what looks like certain destruction, play for time in the hope that something will stop that happening at some undetermined point in the future and continue fighting, or stop the killing by surrendering.

There may be other options but they escape me at the moment. There is no point in arguing about what Israel should and shouldn't do. That's a separate discussion. Hamas have the ability to stop the killing immediately but it requires them to surrender unconditionally.

Your post implies that you think that Hamas should keep fighting.

[Electro1980]

Israel can stop immediately. Talking about Hamas is just an excuse to continue the slaughter. The is not a was between two states. You are completely ignorant of what this war is. You can’t lay just on the rules that govern past wars in Europe and point to the answer. Especially when those wars would now result in war crimes charges.

[Unreal]

Electro1980 said:

Israel can stop immediately. Talking about Hamas is just an excuse to continue the slaughter. The is not a was between two states. You are completely ignorant of what this war is. You can’t lay just on the rules that govern past wars in Europe and point to the answer. Especially when those wars would now result in war crimes charges.

Israel show no signs of stopping. It looks like a pause before the next offensive. Sure, you can make a case for Israel stopping and while you make that case and then try and make it happen, more Palestinians die.

One way or the other Hamas are going to lose. They can either surrender now and save lives or continue to fight and be defeated after even more lives have been lost. I can only surmise Hamas think that the equivalent of the cavalry are going to arrive to save them. Meanwhile, more people will die and it's apparent to most people that no cavalry will be arriving, just Israeli tanks.

[JJJ.]

Unreal said:

Your post implies that you think that Hamas should keep fighting.

No, it implies no such thing.

[Unreal]

JJJ. said:

Unreal said:

Your post implies that you think that Hamas should keep fighting.

No, it implies no such thing.

Thanks for clarifying. You don't think they should surrender or keep fighting.

What should they do?

[JJJ.]

Unreal said:

JJJ. said:

Unreal said:

Your post implies that you think that Hamas should keep fighting.

No, it implies no such thing.

Thanks for clarifying. You don't think they should surrender or keep fighting.

What should they do?

It's not what they should do, it's what Israel should not do, why can't you understand that.

Now, obviously you're trying to bait me or trying to be a smart arse, whatever it's unbecoming.

I don't have the answers, I can't speak for either side. I don't know what's going on in the background especially what the US are telling the Israeli's. How about an initial ceasefire for starters? Hostages/Prisoner exchange. Etc. You know the sort of thing (it's very common, far from ground breaking), rather than ongoing death and destruction.

Regardless to the above, I don't believe it's in the overall interest of the Palestinians or Hamas to surrender unconditionally as you propose.
I can't make myself any clearer than that.

[andymadmak]

JJJ. said:

It's not what they should do, it's what Israel should not do, why can't you understand that.

Now, obviously you're trying to bait me or trying to be a smart arse, whatever it's unbecoming.

I don't have the answers, I can't speak for either side. I don't know what's going on in the background especially what the US are telling the Israeli's. How about an initial ceasefire for starters? Hostages/Prisoner exchange. Etc. You know the sort of thing (it's very common, far from ground breaking), rather than ongoing death and destruction.

Regardless to the above, I don't believe it's in the overall interest of the Palestinians or Hamas to surrender unconditionally as you propose.
I can't make myself any clearer than that.

OK, you think Israel should stop pursuing Hamas and call a ceasefire. Then it all gets a bit vague and hand wavy, so let's try and flesh it out a bit...

Should the ceasefire be equally binding on both sides?
What should Israel do if Hamas continues sporadic attacks?
Should Hamas give up all the hostages once the ceasefire is in place?
What should Israel do if Hamas does not release all the hostages?
Who should be responsible for policing the peace and ensuring that the hostages are returned?
There has been talk of prosecuting Israelis for war crimes - how do you see this evolving?
Should any Hamas members be prosecuted for war crimes, specifically for events on Oct 7th and afterwards?
Since not all Palestinians are Hamas members, who should speak for the Palestinians in any negotiations?

[Unreal]

JJJ. said:

Unreal said:

JJJ. said:

Unreal said:

Your post implies that you think that Hamas should keep fighting.

No, it implies no such thing.

Thanks for clarifying. You don't think they should surrender or keep fighting.

What should they do?

It's not what they should do, it's what Israel should not do, why can't you understand that.

Now, obviously you're trying to bait me or trying to be a smart arse, whatever it's unbecoming.

I don't have the answers, I can't speak for either side. I don't know what's going on in the background especially what the US are telling the Israeli's. How about an initial ceasefire for starters? Hostages/Prisoner exchange. Etc. You know the sort of thing (it's very common, far from ground breaking), rather than ongoing death and destruction.

Regardless to the above, I don't believe it's in the overall interest of the Palestinians or Hamas to surrender unconditionally as you propose.
I can't make myself any clearer than that.

None of us speaks for either side. Hamas cannot control what Israel do. So what Israel should do is quite separate.

Hamas can decide whether to keep fighting or surrender. If the former, then there are various things they can do to try and improve their position. They may be successful or not but either way thousands will die in the interim.

I believe it is in the Palestinians' interests to surrender unconditionally. Deaths would drop to a trickle overnight.

All the time they keep fighting, more of them are killed. Is there a point at which you would agree surrender is the best option?

Edited by Unreal on Monday 29th April 10:16

[JJJ.]

andymadmak said:

JJJ. said:

It's not what they should do, it's what Israel should not do, why can't you understand that.

Now, obviously you're trying to bait me or trying to be a smart arse, whatever it's unbecoming.

I don't have the answers, I can't speak for either side. I don't know what's going on in the background especially what the US are telling the Israeli's. How about an initial ceasefire for starters? Hostages/Prisoner exchange. Etc. You know the sort of thing (it's very common, far from ground breaking), rather than ongoing death and destruction.

Regardless to the above, I don't believe it's in the overall interest of the Palestinians or Hamas to surrender unconditionally as you propose.
I can't make myself any clearer than that.

OK, you think Israel should stop pursuing Hamas and call a ceasefire. Then it all gets a bit vague and hand wavy, so let's try and flesh it out a bit...

Should the ceasefire be equally binding on both sides?
What should Israel do if Hamas continues sporadic attacks?
Should Hamas give up all the hostages once the ceasefire is in place?
What should Israel do if Hamas does not release all the hostages?
Who should be responsible for policing the peace and ensuring that the hostages are returned?
There has been talk of prosecuting Israelis for war crimes - how do you see this evolving?
Should any Hamas members be prosecuted for war crimes, specifically for events on Oct 7th and afterwards?
Since not all Palestinians are Hamas members, who should speak for the Palestinians in any negotiations?

You've a lot of questions there! Try making proposals instead. Go on give it go, you might suprise all of us, even as a pro Zionist rather than looking at one-sided outcome. And remember the ultimate aggressor here is not the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah or the old PLO, it's Israel.
Accept that, repent and just maybe everybody will be on the road to peace!

Edited by JJJ. on Monday 29th April 10:27

[andymadmak]

JJJ. said:

You've a lot of questions there! Try making proposals instead. Go on give it go, you might suprise all of us, even as a pro Zionist rather than looking at one-sided outcome. And remember the ultimate aggressor here is not the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah or the old PLO, it's Israel.

If you actually read the thread instead of just frothing, you'd have seen that I have made very detailed suggestions on what should happen, several times - and my suggestions involved significant compromises by both Israel and the Palestinians. I say Palestinians because despite the polling suggestion wide-spread support amongst them for Hamas, I don't believe that Hamas truly represents Palestinians, nor do I think they could be relied upon to stick to any deal that was made. But thats just my opinion, you may disagree.

What I do note however is that, as always with people like you, as soon as we get to specific questions, the questions that actually have to be answered if anything meaningful is to happen, you deflect and refuse to answer. It does appear that your "concern" for the plight of Palestinians is a mask for you to be able to wail on about Zionists and evil Israel. So why not surprise me and try answering with something constructive instead?