Hamas leader: Nations are recognizing Palestinian state due to ‘fruits of October 7’

[Dogmaphobe]

From my vantage point, it appears Israel is not as serious about preventing civilian deaths as they are about crushing Hamas.

Your "vantage point" is that of an extreme leftist who conforms to Pallywood propaganda.

 

[gipper]

I don't see it as a good guy against a bad guy. Neither side really want peace until they get everything they want.

You need to see it for what it is. Denying reality is foolish.

This is a conflict repeated throughout history. One side invades the land of another. The indigenous people fight back.

If the invader hadn’t invaded, there would be no conflict.

 

[alang1216]

You need to see it for what it is. Denying reality is foolish.

This is a conflict repeated throughout history. One side invades the land of another. The indigenous people fight back.

If the invader hadn’t invaded, there would be no conflict.

Bad example since this land has been invaded repeatedly, maybe more so than any other. Saying one group is indigenous means selecting a small slice of history and saying that is the beginning. In this case both sides and make a case for being indigenous people fighting an invader.

 

[Shusha]

Were there 'belligerent events' done by Israel that Hamas was reacting to?

Nope. The belligerent is Hamas. Israel is acting in self-defense. In every case, without exception.

Would genocide be acceptable to prevent future invasions and atrocities?

Any action which is INTENDED to prevent future invasions and atrocities, BY DEFINITION is not genocide.

Genocide is the intentional extermination of an entire peoples AS SUCH.

 

[Shusha]

From my vantage point, it appears Israel is not as serious about preventing civilian deaths as they are about crushing Hamas.

Well, we've only just met, so I'm not entirely sure how knowledgeable your "vantage point" is. So far, you have repeated rather shallow soundbytes without much substance, even when responding to my long and detailed posts.

Still, I'll throw out a few ideas and see what spaghetti sticks to your wall.

The responsibility for preventing civilian deaths lies with BOTH Israel and Hamas (as the governing body and military of Gaza). Hamas, far from being "serious about preventing civilian deaths", is actively working towards civilian casualties. Hamas is also intentionally violently killing its own citizens. And, of course, Hamas has committed numerous war crimes, as outlined in a previous post.

Israel, on the other hand, has been following the Laws of Armed Conflict and has, indeed gone above and beyond what is expected. Israel has warned civilians to evacuate prior to striking; leaflets; phone and text messages; safe evacuation corridors; humanitarian zones; calling off strikes for civilian presence. If you have any ideas what more Israel might have done, please do be sure to let me know.

 

[gipper]

Bad example since this land has been invaded repeatedly, maybe more so than any other. Saying one group is indigenous means selecting a small slice of history and saying that is the beginning. In this case both sides and make a case for being indigenous people fighting an invader.

Small slice of history and yet the Palestinians have lived on the land for a 1,000 years.

Do you think it’s acceptable for Europeans to invade Palestine and murder with impunity and steal the land?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Do you think murdering 500,000 defenseless civilians and destroying their country

except that didn't happen

 

[HikerGuy83]

because a terror group killed less than 1200?

Hmmmm......

The terrorist group supported by the general population? That terrorist group.

There is no math.

You slaughter a festival after years of continual rocket attackes.......

You are gone.

Why don't you find a big highway to play on.

 

[Shusha]

alang1216 . I see your emoji on my post. I just want to be clear what I am saying here, lest it be deliberately misinterpreted to mean that I support genocide. Genocide is never acceptable. Ever. We clear on that?

War is not genocide. It is a deliberate misuse of the word "genocide" in order to exaggerate and thus demonize Israel. A war of self-defense, responding to belligerence, with the goal of preventing future attacks and atrocities, and a duty to protect the your citizens is war, not genocide. Crimes against humanity can be committed in war. Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict can also be committed in war. These should be condemned. (And I do).

 

[alang1216]

Well, we've only just met, so I'm not entirely sure how knowledgeable your "vantage point" is. So far, you have repeated rather shallow soundbytes without much substance, even when responding to my long and detailed posts.

Still, I'll throw out a few ideas and see what spaghetti sticks to your wall.

The responsibility for preventing civilian deaths lies with BOTH Israel and Hamas (as the governing body and military of Gaza). Hamas, far from being "serious about preventing civilian deaths", is actively working towards civilian casualties. Hamas is also intentionally violently killing its own citizens. And, of course, Hamas has committed numerous war crimes, as outlined in a previous post.

Agreed.

Israel, on the other hand, has been following the Laws of Armed Conflict and has, indeed gone above and beyond what is expected. Israel has warned civilians to evacuate prior to striking; leaflets; phone and text messages; safe evacuation corridors; humanitarian zones; calling off strikes for civilian presence. If you have any ideas what more Israel might have done, please do be sure to let me know.

It seems they have not always followed the Laws of Armed Conflict:

Israeli soldier tells CBS News he was ordered to use Palestinians as human shields in Gaza​

Was this the only incident? Hardly likely.

 

[alang1216]

Small slice of history and yet the Palestinians have lived on the land for a 1,000 years.

Do you think it’s acceptable for Europeans to invade Palestine and murder with impunity and steal the land?

Excellent question, one I've wrestled with for a long time: How long do you have to live on land taken from another before it becomes yours? I'd wager there are few if any lands that were not, at some point, taken from the previous residents.

 

[alang1216]

alang1216 . I see your emoji on my post. I just want to be clear what I am saying here, lest it be deliberately misinterpreted to mean that I support genocide. Genocide is never acceptable. Ever. We clear on that?

War is not genocide. It is a deliberate misuse of the word "genocide" in order to exaggerate and thus demonize Israel. A war of self-defense, responding to belligerence, with the goal of preventing future attacks and atrocities, and a duty to protect the your citizens is war, not genocide. Crimes against humanity can be committed in war. Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict can also be committed in war. These should be condemned. (And I do).

Will Israel do in Gaza what they have done in the West Bank? Will Israel's security require settlements in Gaza and the displacement of the Palestinians there? In my mind, forcing people out of their homes and lands is the very definition of genocide and it is still being done in the West Bank.

 

[Shusha]

It seems they have not always followed the Laws of Armed Conflict:

Israeli soldier tells CBS News he was ordered to use Palestinians as human shields in Gaza​

Was this the only incident? Hardly likely.

Finally! A valid criticism. (Directed generally, not specifically directed at you). Yes. This is a fair criticism. I am convinced that this has been done by individual soldiers and may, in fact, be recurring. It is a violation and all individual soldiers who commit this crime or who order others to commit this crime should be properly investigated and disciplined. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is an official policy of the IDF or the Israeli government. There is evidence to the contrary.

Booby-trapped buildings are a significant issue in Gaza and there are limited strategies available to deal with them. Airstrikes to demolish the building entire. Canine units. No easy answers.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You mean all the evidence that supports your views. I've shown you even Jews don't always agree with you. Here are some Palestinian voices:

Many Palestinians advocate for peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel and a two-state solution, including the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Some prominent voices who have advocated for peace and nonviolence include:

• Yasser Arafat: As Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), he signed the Oslo Accord peace agreement in 1993, recognizing Israel's right to exist and committing to peaceful negotiations.
• Mahmoud Abbas: The current President of the Palestinian Authority, he has consistently reaffirmed the Palestinian commitment to the two-state solution and outlined a political roadmap towards statehood.
• Ali Abu Awwad: A leading Palestinian peace activist and founder of Taghyeer (Change), a movement advocating nonviolence as a means to achieve a solution to the conflict and secure Palestinian rights.
• Individuals involved in organizations like Combatants for Peace (Combatants for Peace is an Israeli-Palestinian NGO and an egalitarian, bi-national, grassroots movement committed to non-violent action against the “Israeli occupation and all forms of violence” in Israel and the Palestinian territories) and OneVoice Movement: These grassroots groups actively work towards peaceful coexistence and dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians.

It's important to note that the issue of peace and the approach to resolving the conflict are complex and diverse within Palestinian society, with varying viewpoints and strategies.

All of the evidence shows there are no Palestinians voices for peace with Israel and no Palestinian leaders who advocate peace with Israel.

Arafat signed the Oslo Accords but ended the negotiations by launching the second intifada. In 2000, Israel proposed a Palestinian state comprised of all of Gaza and 93% of Samaria and Judea (West Bank) and a Palestinian controlled overpass that would have connected Gaza to Judea and Samaria, and the Palestinian response, Arafat's response, was to launch the second intifada, sending suicide bombers and other terrorists into Israel to attack civilian targets such as restaurants and buses. The Europeans lavished hundreds of millions of dollars on Arafat's government, much of which he appeared to appropriate for himself and his allies, but he was clearly no advocate for peace.

After Israel put down the second intifada, and Abbas took over the Palestinian Authority, Israel tried again to make peace with the Palestinians, and to that end, in 2005, closed many of the Israel settlements in Judea and Samaria and with the support of the Bush administration, Israel withdrew from Gaza and allowed Abbas to move 13,000 armed troops across Israel from Judea and Samaria to Gaza to take over Gaza, but Hamas resisted and the PA troops, which outnumbered the Hamas fighters by at least 4 to 1 put up nearly no resistance and Hamas, showing there is no discernable difference between supporters of Hamas and supporters of the Palestinian Authority on the issue of peace with Israel, took control of Gaza.

Two years later, in 2008, the Palestinians launched the first of their five wars against Israel from Gaza, the current war being the fifth. Wheb Israel attempted to forge peace with the Palestinians in the 1990's, the Palestinian response was the second intifada, and wen Israel attempted to revive peace negotiations with the Palestinians after the second intifada the Palestinian response has been war after war after war. Clearly, there are no voices for peace with Israel among the Palestinians and there are no Palestinian leaders who advocate for peace with Israel.

Certainly, Abbas is no advocate for peace with Israel. As leader of the PA, Abbas has spent approximately $300,000,000 annually, about half of the PA's foreign aid, on the Martyr's Fund which rewards Palestinians and their families for committing act of terrorism against Israelis; the more Israelis they kill, the higher the reward. Even so, in 2008 Israel again tried to make peace with the Palestinians by proposing to Abbas a Palestinian state comprised of all of Gaza, 94% of Judea and Samaria plus productive agricultural land from pre 1967 Israel, a Palestinians controlled overpass connecting Gaza to Judea and Samaria and joint jurisdiction over Jerusalem, and Abbas refused to accept it. There is no rational basis for calling Abbas an advocate for peace with Israel.

Awwad is a Palestinian who earns his living traveling around the world lecturing and writing about nonviolence but who has never been a leader among the Palestinians.

No matter how hard you search, you will not find any significant voices for peace among the Palestinians or any Palestinian leaders who advocate for peace with Israel.

 

[Shusha]

In my mind, forcing people out of their homes and lands is the very definition of genocide

Well, yes. This seems to be the very definition of genocide in a lot of people's minds. But the term genocide has a very specific legal meaning. Most people are using it incorrectly. It may be that they use it incorrectly in order to put some additional emotional weight behind it. It may be that they are intentionally demonizing Israel (Jews). Regardless, I feel that it is important not to water down or minimize the word to mean "bad things that are not genocide".

Will Israel do in Gaza what they have done in the West Bank?

I'm not privy to the internal workings of the Israeli government, so I can't say with any certainty. Nor can I predict future events which might alter the intended current plan. I can give you my opinion.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "what they have done".

Will Israel's security require settlements in Gaza

I wouldn't use the word "require". (You'll see I am very picky with my words. Professional writer.) I do think it would be beneficial with respect to reducing the "othering" of Jews by Arab Palestinians, especially in Gaza where they have been radicalized. If Israel can have a population 20% Arab, I can't see why Palestine, should it actually come into being, can't have a population 20% Jewish.

"Jews are not permitted to live in this territory" is a form of ethnic cleansing and should be condemned as such.

and the displacement of the Palestinians there?

Voluntary emigration? Absolutely. It is an egregious violation of international humanitarian law to prevent civilians from fleeing war. It is a violation of agency for the people of Gaza to be prevented from leaving their country, and that too is a violation of international humanitarian law. You can't on the one hand complain about Gaza being an "open air prison" and on the other require the people of Gaza to remain in Gaza.

Forced displacement? Absolutely not. Ethnic cleansing is abhorrent. I'd argue that the government of Israel has never announced any intention to do so and has often said the contrary. (Yes, I am aware of Smotrich and Ben Gvir but they do not speak for the Israeli government when declaring their personal and odious beliefs.)

In my mind, forcing people out of their homes and lands is the very definition of genocide and it is still being done in the West Bank.

There is no forced displacement occurring currently in Judea and Samaria, or Areas A, B and C.

 

[Shusha]

Excellent question, one I've wrestled with for a long time: How long do you have to live on land taken from another before it becomes yours? I'd wager there are few if any lands that were not, at some point, taken from the previous residents.

Here's my approach to this question. I hope you find it useful to consider.

With respect to collectives of peoples, indigenous or elsewise, land is not "owned". Land ownership is a concept in some cultures which applies exclusively to individual ownership of private plots of land. Not all cultures hold this concept of private individual land ownership. Many cultures (including the Ottoman Empire and Israel) hold that land belongs to the sovereign, or to Gd, or to no one in particular. Land can be leased, worked, or cultivated, usually in exchange for payment of taxes and/or military service to the sovereign. (As an aside, this is why land use in Areas A, B, and C is extraordinarily complex as the laws surrounding land use are an unwieldy combination of Ottoman Land Law, Jordanian law, and Israeli law.)

What we are really discussing, then, is rights of a collective people with an ethnic, cultural, or national identity to have the right to express self-determination in a specific territory. (This can be an exclusive or a non-exclusive right. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game, but that is, perhaps, another discussion.)

It seems to me that the question posed should be framed thus: Under what circumstances, post-invasion, conquest, colonization, does an indigenous peoples (ethnic, cultural, national identity) LOSE their right to self-determination in their homeland (the place of their origin)?

My response is: NEVER. It is an inherent and inalienable right.

 

[alang1216]

Well, yes. This seems to be the very definition of genocide in a lot of people's minds. But the term genocide has a very specific legal meaning. Most people are using it incorrectly. It may be that they use it incorrectly in order to put some additional emotional weight behind it. It may be that they are intentionally demonizing Israel (Jews). Regardless, I feel that it is important not to water down or minimize the word to mean "bad things that are not genocide".

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide​

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I'm not privy to the internal workings of the Israeli government, so I can't say with any certainty. Nor can I predict future events which might alter the intended current plan. I can give you my opinion.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "what they have done".

How much of the West Bank are now occupied by Jewish settlements? And the number is still growing.

I wouldn't use the word "require". (You'll see I am very picky with my words. Professional writer.) I do think it would be beneficial with respect to reducing the "othering" of Jews by Arab Palestinians, especially in Gaza where they have been radicalized. If Israel can have a population 20% Arab, I can't see why Palestine, should it actually come into being, can't have a population 20% Jewish.

Israel is governed by those 80% who are Jews. Will Gaza and/or the West Bank be governed by those 20% who are Jews?

"Jews are not permitted to live in this territory" is a form of ethnic cleansing and should be condemned as such.

Live in or govern?

Voluntary emigration? Absolutely. It is an egregious violation of international humanitarian law to prevent civilians from fleeing war. It is a violation of agency for the people of Gaza to be prevented from leaving their country, and that too is a violation of international humanitarian law. You can't on the one hand complain about Gaza being an "open air prison" and on the other require the people of Gaza to remain in Gaza.

Should a Gazan leave would they be considered emigrants or refugees with the right to return?

Forced displacement? Absolutely not. Ethnic cleansing is abhorrent. I'd argue that the government of Israel has never announced any intention to do so and has often said the contrary. (Yes, I am aware of Smotrich and Ben Gvir but they do not speak for the Israeli government when declaring their personal and odious beliefs.)

There is no forced displacement occurring currently in Judea and Samaria, or Areas A, B and C.

Israel controls utilities and the permitting process in the West Bank and has used that power to displace Palestinians.

 

[alang1216]

Here's my approach to this question. I hope you find it useful to consider.

With respect to collectives of peoples, indigenous or elsewise, land is not "owned". Land ownership is a concept in some cultures which applies exclusively to individual ownership of private plots of land. Not all cultures hold this concept of private individual land ownership. Many cultures (including the Ottoman Empire and Israel) hold that land belongs to the sovereign, or to Gd, or to no one in particular. Land can be leased, worked, or cultivated, usually in exchange for payment of taxes and/or military service to the sovereign. (As an aside, this is why land use in Areas A, B, and C is extraordinarily complex as the laws surrounding land use are an unwieldy combination of Ottoman Land Law, Jordanian law, and Israeli law.)

What we are really discussing, then, is rights of a collective people with an ethnic, cultural, or national identity to have the right to express self-determination in a specific territory. (This can be an exclusive or a non-exclusive right. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game, but that is, perhaps, another discussion.)

It seems to me that the question posed should be framed thus: Under what circumstances, post-invasion, conquest, colonization, does an indigenous peoples (ethnic, cultural, national identity) LOSE their right to self-determination in their homeland (the place of their origin)?

My response is: NEVER. It is an inherent and inalienable right.

Never would mean that the US would have to return the land to the Native Americans and Israel would have to return the land to the Arabs. That seems like an impossible threshold to cross.

 

[Shusha]

Never would mean that the US would have to return the land to the Native Americans and Israel would have to return the land to the Arabs. That seems like an impossible threshold to cross.

You’ve got it backwards with the Arabs. They would be forced to give the land back to the Jewish people who preceded the Arab invasion, conquest, and colonization

That aside, take note that I was not discussing how one gains rights, I was discussing exclusively if and under which circumstances, one loses rights. Do you agree that invasion, conquest, and colonization does not remove the rights of the existing peoples?

 

[Shusha]

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide​

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There is absolutely no indication that Israel is doing anything to “deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”.

Don’t @me with starvation. There is no widespread starvation or famine in Gaza.

Don’t @me with destruction of buildings. There is a military objective in the destruction of buildings. (See previous conversation about booby-traps).