Hamas Leader Killed

[gipper]

I thank your father for his service in the defeat of tyranny.

Israel is not conducting genocide. There is no rational definition of the term that could possibly be applied to Israel's military actions.

Except for the tens of thousands of women and children murdered and maimed.

Genocidal freak!

 

[daveman]

Hamas loves hiding behind and under civilians.

Is it just because they're cowards or because they are also war criminals?

It's both.

 

[daveman]

Except for the tens of thousands of women and children murdered and maimed.

Genocidal freak!

You don't give a shit about them. You just use their deaths to justify your irrational hatred of Jews.

 

[Billo_Really]

What. Trudeau?

Now we have a government just as fucked as yours!

 

[Grau]

It is two armed groups with military capabilities and weapons fighting each other for control of territory and a population after a specific act of belligerence by one of the parties. One of the parties has the specific military goal of self-defense and preventing harm to its civilian population. The other has a specific military goal of destroying a State while using the deaths of both its own population and the enemy populations civilians to further its goal. How is that NOT a war? Of course, it is a war. The fact that the two parties to the conflict have differing military strengths does not change the definition of war.

Hamas explicitly chose the act of belligerence that began this phase of the war. (Intending on having Iran, Hezbollah, Houthi and West Bank factions to join them.)

"Jews are not allowed to live in their own homeland" is not a just cause for war, any more than "Arabs are not allowed to live here" is. If the Arab Palestinians want a State (and I am certain that they do not), they are going to have to accept that Jews will live in it. If the Arabs adopt a policy of "no Jews allowed" as a condition of Statehood, they are demonstrating they are not capable of living in peace with their neighbors.


As someone who has been in the middle of 2 wars, I'm curious as to where you found your very specific definition of a "war".
Using your same curiously worded definition, the Holocaust could be called a "war" as could several uprisings since all uprisings or resistance groups everywhere are "....armed groups with military capabilities...."

I strongly suspect that far more of the world regards it as a genocide than a "war". Even a majority of Americans(1) who are routinely manipulated by a pro Israel MSM oppose what many Jews are condemning as a genocide. (2), (3)

No amount of lipstick on the deliberate bombing of homeless, starving, sick and traumatized women and children is going to render the inhuman torment and slaughter going on in what remains of Gaza a genuine "war".

Next, I get the feeling that you are confusing justified condemnation of the specific Israeli / Jewish individuals responsible for whole scale mass murder with false assertions made by many frustrated writers that all Israelis are genocidal, sadistic and grasping. Still, I think that only a very few people here regard Israel as an illegitimate entity unworthy of existing.

It is precisely because I appreciate Israel, its history, its many contributions and wish the best for Israel's many peace seeking people that I so strongly oppose the specific myopic Zionist monsters who are ensuring Israel's perpetual misery and inevitable destruction.

Re: Hamas explicitly chose the act of belligerence that began this phase of the war.

Actually, decision makers in Israel's government knew over a year in advance when, where and how this attack would occur and, apparently, spent that year planning on how to best contain and exploit precisely what they know would occur.

Guards at the most sophisticated and highly monitored border / Wall on the planet were alerting the leadership that an attack like the one on the Video Hamas produced and spread around the world.

For some unknown reason, someone in the Netanyahu government decided to remove troops (4) instead of attempting to reinforce the point of attack,(4) just 2 days before the most publicized "sneak attack" in history.

Since there have been countless "phases" and "Settler" attacks during the 70+ year old Nakba, the only explanation for the current genocide that makes it different from other "phases" is that Israel's leadership decided that enabling this well known attack to take place gave "Greater Israel" Zionists the perfect excuse to destroy Gaza with free American bombs and exterminate / expel its native residents.

The "act of belligerence" that initiated 70+ years of fighting is the invasion of foreign Zionist terrorist gangs from Europe, the US.

Before that, Palestinian Jews and Arabs were willing to share the land and its resources with each other and in many cases, were quite close. (5)
That changed with the invasion of European trained and armed Zionist terrorist gangs who wanted and still want all of Palestine as part of their "Greater Israel"

Re: "Jews are not allowed to live in their own homeland"

I haven't read anyone object to a Jewish homeland, it's just the genocidal Zionists who demand an American subsidized and defended "Promised Continent" that have made today's Israel such a global pariah.

Thanks,

(1). "Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza"​

"Approval has dropped from 50% to 36% since November"

Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza

A majority of U.S. adults now disapprove of Israel's military action in Gaza, a shift from the prior survey in November.

news.gallup.com

(2). “Jews Against Genocide statement and action”

Jews Against Genocide statement and action | IJAN

www.ijan.org

EXCERPT “We, Jews Against Genocide, came to Yad Vashem, Israel’s memorial of the genocide committed against Jews, to honor the Palestinian children who are dying in a genocide committed by Jews.

We brought dolls to symbolise the children of Gaza, and tried to bring a glimpse of the horror that Gazan’s face, to Israel’s doorstep. We hope to show Israel, and the world, the absurd reality of using the memory of one genocide to justify another.” CONTINUED


(3). “A Textbook Case of Genocide”

“Israel has been explicit about what it’s carrying out in Gaza. Why isn’t the world listening?”

A Textbook Case of Genocide

Israel has been explicit about what it’s carrying out in Gaza. Why isn’t the world listening?

jewishcurrents.org

(4). “Israeli army to investigate moving of troops from Gaza border 2 days before Oct. 7 attack”

“Troops moved towards West Bank before Hamas launched surprise attack against Israel”

Israeli army to investigate moving of troops from Gaza border 2 days before Oct. 7 attack

Troops moved towards West Bank before Hamas launched surprise attack against Israel - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

EXCERPT “The Israeli army said Monday that it will investigate the moving of commando troops from the Gaza border towards the West Bank two days before the Palestinian group Hamas launched a surprise attack against Israel on Oct. 7. “ CONTINUED


(5). “Before Zionism: The shared life of Jews and Palestinians”

Before Zionism: The shared life of Jews and Palestinians - +972 Magazine

Before the advent of Zionism and Arab nationalism, Jews and Palestinians lived in peace in the holy land. Menachem Klein’s new book maps out an oft-forgotten history of Israel/Palestine, and offers some guidance on how we may go back to that time. By Noam Rotem Menachem Klein’s book, Lives in...

www.972mag.com

EXCERPT “He quotes the memoirs of Ya’akov Elazar from Jerusalem, who remembers how “the Muslim women cooperated respectfully with the customs of the Jewish religion…the Muslim neighbors allowed the Jewish women to pump water necessary before the Sabbath.”

Klein also describes how some Muslims even joined their Jewish neighbors in reciting religious prayers. He describes the cheder (a traditional elementary school where the basics of Judaism and the Hebrew language were taught) run by Hacham Gershon in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, where Arab parents brought their children so that they would learn how to behave properly. Klein also writes that sexual relations and marriages between Jews and Arabs were not unheard of, even if they were not considered legitimate.” CONTINUED

 

[Coyote]

No, it is not. It is a war crime to deny humanitarian aide. There are other organizations which can provide the same service. Israel is choosing not to operate with UNRWA. Israel is not denying all aide.

I’m going to disagree here. There are no other organizations that can provide the same service, at this time, at the level needed. There is no other entity with the organization needed on the ground that can do this. And Israel is certainly aware of this when it made THIS decision at THIS time. The argument is splitting hairs.

Passing this law, WITH NO PLAN IN PLACE FIRST to replace what UNRWA does is reprehensible. You cannot create a whole new structure in 90 days in the middle of a war zone.

What is the difference overtly denying aid or covertly creating conditions that make aid impossible?

 

[Shusha]

Hey!!!!!! Where have you BEEN?! Hopefully all is well in your world and you've just been taking a sanity break from * waves at world *. Dear holy rabbit who dwells in an unknown pocket of the universe, I have missed you! And your sane (if sometimes incorrect) discussion!

There are no other organizations that can provide the same service, at this time, at the level needed.

It would depend on what you mean by "same service". There are PLENTY of organizations which can deliver emergency aide distribution. And should be doing so. And most of them actually do it better. (And without the rapey and killy murdery bits).

 

[Coyote]

Hey!!!!!! Where have you BEEN?! Hopefully all is well in your world and you've just been taking a sanity break from * waves at world *. Dear holy rabbit who dwells in an unknown pocket of the universe, I have missed you! And your sane (if sometimes incorrect) discussion!

Thanks, you are so sweet (and the rare sane voice around here) . I have had to step away just to maintain my sanity, my mother passed away in March, and I can’t deal deal with some of the stuff here. By the way, congrats on the new puppy! As a fellow dog lover, I can appreciate both the joy and the mayhem!

It would depend on what you mean by "same service". There are PLENTY of organizations which can deliver emergency aide distribution. And should be doing so. And most of them actually do it better. (And without the rapey and killy murdery bits).

Well…let’s see…UNRWA employs some 30,000 people across the a Middle East and 13,000 in Gaza specifically. Israel has multiple times made sweeping accusations some with evidence, others without evidence. So far, it would seem of those accusation, maybe a couple dozen people have been shown to be actively involved in Hamas’ military wing and of that nine may have been involved in involved in the rape murder bits (I’m assuming you mean Oct 7). When accusations were made, fairly recently, UNWRA immediately suspended the employees pending investigation. It is not surprising that out of 13,000, in a situation like Gaza, you won’t have some with ties or active participation with the enemy organization. Broadbrushing the entire organization that way would be like broadbrushing the entire IDF with the antrocities of some of its members. Israel has been gunning for UNWRA from it’s inception.

Going back to numbers…there are roughly 2 million Palestinians in Gaza. UNWRA, with 13,000 employees, has over decades, developed the necessary financial, physical and human infrastructure and relationships required for this and have continued despite high casualties.

What organization has those abilities and can take over within 90 days?

 

[Lisa558]

Excuse my naïveté, but why put the onus on Israel? Why not put the onus on the Islamic terrorists, who have held and abused and tortured the hostages for more than a year? After all, it is THEIR people suffering.

Let’s put more of a demand on the release of the hostages, with the promise that Israel will have humanitarian aid to all the “Palestinians” within 12 hours.

Seems to me that the Democrats are putting more demands on Israel than they are on the Islamic savages.

 

[Shusha]

What organization has those abilities and can take over within 90 days?

I think it is the wrong question to ask. This is the right question:

What are the immediate and anticipated short-term humanitarian needs of the civilians of Gaza? Can those needs be filled by WHO, Red Cross, World Kitchen, UNHCR, and others?

In terms of the larger picture, there is simply no need for the people of Gaza and other Arab Palestinians to be considered refugees, and no need for a refugee organization. Whoever takes over the government of Gaza after the end of the war can take on normal government functions such as running schools and hospitals and providing other social services. That is what a government is for. Time to end this notion that Arab Palestinians are "refugees" and thus unable to take on the full responsibilities and be accountable as a government for its own people.

 

[Coyote]

I think it is the wrong question to ask. This is the right question:

What are the immediate and anticipated short-term humanitarian needs of the civilians of Gaza? Can those needs be filled by WHO, Red Cross, World Kitchen, UNHCR, and others?

If that is the case, why was that question NOT asked and answered prior to passing this law?

Why was nothing put in place to ensure a smooth transition?

Why was there no communication or coordination with other aid agencies prior to this?

I think these are the relevant questions.

In terms of the larger picture, there is simply no need for the people of Gaza and other Arab Palestinians to be considered refugees, and no need for a refugee organization. Whoever takes over the government of Gaza after the end of the war can take on normal government functions such as running schools and hospitals and providing other social services. That is what a government is for. Time to end this notion that Arab Palestinians are "refugees" and thus unable to take on the full responsibilities and be accountable as a government for its own people.

I agree in part with what you say. However, ending humanitarian assistance (which de facto is what will happen without a planned transition) in the middle of a humanitarian catastrophe and approaching winter is NOT the way to do it. So why is it being done NOW and in this way when it could easily be done AFTER the war is concluded?

 

[Shusha]

I agree in part with what you say. However, ending humanitarian assistance (which de facto is what will happen without a planned transition) in the middle of a humanitarian catastrophe and approaching winter is NOT the way to do it.

Wait. No one is saying to end all humanitarian assistance. Only to move it away from UNWRA and onto the other organizations. And do you have knowledge that COGAT is not communicating with the other organizations?

So why is it being done NOW and in this way when it could easily be done AFTER the war is concluded?

The obvious answer is that the war is nearing its conclusion. Israel doesn't want UNWRA still standing after the war. There would be a fear that trying to dismantle UNWRA in peacetime would not go over well.

 

[Shusha]

If that is the case, why was that question NOT asked and answered prior to passing this law?

I'm sure it was. But also Israel is not asking for input or suggestions about how she runs her country.

Why was nothing put in place to ensure a smooth transition?

I think a "smooth transition" is unlikely at anytime. Rather too late for that, yes?

Why was there no communication or coordination with other aid agencies prior to this?

Are you sure there wasn't?

 

[Coyote]

I'm sure it was. But also Israel is not asking for input or suggestions about how she runs her country.

What evidence do you have that makes you sure, because I am not seeing anything what so ever to indicate there was.

Israel may not be asking for input on how she runs her occupied territories (as far as I know Gaza and West Bank are not yet part of her country), but she sure is asking for weapons. If she chooses to act in ways that deliberately exacerbate humanitarian catastrophes or lead to war crimes, or worse, then she is not above criticism.

I think a "smooth transition" is unlikely at anytime. Rather too late for that, yes?

I disagree. A smooth transition can occur outside of wartime. Clearly, Israel has the ability to cut ties with UNWRA, and could have done so at any time or do so at any future time.

Why now? In the middle of a war, of a worsening humanitarian crisis annd impending winter.

(messed up qoute) : Shusha
Are you sure there wasn't?

If there was, feel free to provide evidence of it.

 

[Coyote]

Wait. No one is saying to end all humanitarian assistance. Only to move it away from UNWRA and onto the other organizations. And do you have knowledge that COGAT is not communicating with the other organizations?

I'm not saying ending all humanitarian assistance.

If they want to move it away from UNWRA, then do so after the conflict ends and the humanitarian catastrophe is at least somewhat improved.

Your asking me to prove a negative. Is there any evidence tbat communication has occurred among COGAT and other organizations ahead of this law being passed? Any preparation? Going by statements from various humanitarian groups working in the area it doesn't seem like it, in fact they seem shocked and concerned about the ability of other groups to fill the void.

The obvious answer is that the war is nearing its conclusion. Israel doesn't want UNWRA still standing after the war. There would be a fear that trying to dismantle UNWRA in peacetime would not go over well.

I think dismantling UNWRA during the war is far less likely to "go over well" than do so after the war. I also think Israel doesn't care whether or not it "goes over well".

I can think of no ethical reason to do this at this particular time. It leaves me asking "why" and the answers that come to me (in the context of what is going on in Israel's political arena) are not good at all.

 

[Shusha]

What evidence do you have that makes you sure, because I am not seeing anything what so ever to indicate there was.

Basic common sense that Israelis are not stupid and are very likely to take into consideration and at least discuss probable or possible outcomes before enacting a law such as this.

Israel may not be asking for input on how she runs her occupied territories

My understanding of the new law is that is bans the operation of UNWRA within Israel and bans Israeli government involvement in other UNWRA operations. A State is not obligated to interact with outside agencies should it choose not to. Wouldn't you agree?

(as far as I know Gaza and West Bank are not yet part of her country),

Well, my position for decades now, and I believe it to be the only correct legal position, is that the entirety of Mandate Palestine is sovereign Israel and that this has never been changed or abrogated in law. But we don't have to get into that now, as it is not relevant to this specific conversation. (And you know how I love me my specificity!)

but she sure is asking for weapons.

She is fighting several terrorist groups and at least one belligerent State calling for her utter destruction. So, yeah.

If she chooses to act in ways that deliberately exacerbate humanitarian catastrophes

Ah. And this is where I think we have our major point of disagreement. IF Israel can remove UNWRA from the equation WITHOUT the humanitarian concerns becoming worse, would you have a problem with UNWRA's removal?

or lead to war crimes

I am not following how removal of UNWRA would "lead" to war crimes? What are you thinking here?

, or worse, then she is not above criticism.

Israel is never above criticism.

Why now? In the middle of a war, of a worsening humanitarian crisis and impending winter.

Israel wants to dismantle UNWRA BEFORE the war ends. Israel doesn't want to have this discussion on a global stage during peacetime (or more accurately ceasefire). The war is nearing its final stages. So now is the time.

 

[Shusha]

I can think of no ethical reason to do this at this particular time. It leaves me asking "why" and the answers that come to me (in the context of what is going on in Israel's political arena) are not good at all.

UNWRA has been known for a long time to be an organization that is corrupt and participates with and works alongside terrorist organizations (terrorist governments). The reasons to dismantle it are obvious:

• Arab Palestinians (with very, very few exceptions) are not refugees.
• There is already an organization which deals with refugees globally.
• The new government of Gaza (whoever it is) will be responsible to provide the necessary social services for its population.
• Terrorists shouldn't be embedded in social service organizations.
• Israel is absolutely done pandering to half-measures "demanded" by the "international community" which make her vulnerable to attacks by terrorist quasi-governments who have no respect for or intent to follow humanitarian law.

 

[Coyote]

Basic common sense that Israelis are not stupid and are very likely to take into consideration and at least discuss probable or possible outcomes before enacting a law such as this.

I don't accept the common sense argument because it too often ignores self interest and complicated political agendas. Given the reactions of multiple organizations it doesn't seem like they were part of any discussions. At one time they even proposed that the IDF would distribute aid. Looking back at a number of decisions the current coalition has made (not even concerning the war) discussion within a broader community has not been part of the process. Why should this be any different?

My understanding of the new law is that is bans the operation of UNWRA within Israel and bans Israeli government involvement in other UNWRA operations. A State is not obligated to interact with outside agencies should it choose not to. Wouldn't you agree?

Ah...but the devil in it is that without that cooperation and coordination it is almost impossible to distribute aid. A nice legalistic argument to effectively diminish aid going into Gaza.

Well, my position for decades now, and I believe it to be the only correct legal position, is that the entirety of Mandate Palestine is sovereign Israel and that this has never been changed or abrogated in law. But we don't have to get into that now, as it is not relevant to this specific conversation. (And you know how I love me my specificity!)

She is fighting several terrorist groups and at least one belligerent State calling for her utter destruction. So, yeah.

Actually...I disagree.

Israel is THE most powerful entity in the Middle East now. Israel is supported by some of the most powerful countries in the world. Israel is a nuclear power. Who isn't powerful? Hamas. Not saying they don't wish to be but they aren't, particularly now. Who else is not powerful? The Palestinians, even less so under the current Israeli government. Israel has turned Gaza into rubble. After Hamas committed the atrocities of October 7, Israel (based on statements made by those in positions of power) vowed to destroy Gaza and turn it into rubble. It has done so.

It would seem Israel called for the total destruction of Gaza and carried it out. So no, we should not be supplying any weapons beyond defense.

Ah. And this is where I think we have our major point of disagreement. IF Israel can remove UNWRA from the equation WITHOUT the humanitarian concerns becoming worse, would you have a problem with UNWRA's removal?

Nope, as long as there remained the means for the Palestinians to continue to function independently.

I am not following how removal of UNWRA would "lead" to war crimes? What are you thinking here?

If by doing so it created starvation.

Israel is never above criticism.

Israel wants to dismantle UNWRA BEFORE the war ends. Israel doesn't want to have this discussion on a global stage during peacetime (or more accurately ceasefire). The war is nearing its final stages. So now is the time.

It makes zero sense to do so during wartime in the midst of a severe humanitarian crisis. It just doesn't.

 

[Coyote]

UNWRA has been known for a long time to be an organization that is corrupt and participates with and works alongside terrorist organizations (terrorist governments). The reasons to dismantle it are obvious:

• Arab Palestinians (with very, very few exceptions) are not refugees.
• There is already an organization which deals with refugees globally.
• The new government of Gaza (whoever it is) will be responsible to provide the necessary social services for its population.
• Terrorists shouldn't be embedded in social service organizations.
• Israel is absolutely done pandering to half-measures "demanded" by the "international community" which make her vulnerable to attacks by terrorist quasi-governments who have no respect for or intent to follow humanitarian law.

Then do so after the war and not in the middle of a war induced humanitarian catastrophe!

 

[Shusha]

Ah. And this is where I think we have our major point of disagreement. IF Israel can remove UNWRA from the equation WITHOUT the humanitarian concerns becoming worse, would you have a problem with UNWRA's removal?

Nope...

So problem solved, yeah? It doesn't have to be UNWRA. It can be any organization (or government) which can manage the concerns.

as long as there remained the means for the Palestinians to continue to function independently.

This seems to me to be an entirely different argument and not at all related to UNWRA. What does it mean "function independently"?