Is it Possible for Israel and Palestine to Peacefully Coexist?

[Lisa558]

It is not the homeland of the Palestinians. Their continued presence there is incompatible with the safety and well being of the Jews. If the Palestinians refuse to leave, they will need to take the consequences.

Israel offered them peace for land, and the only condition was that they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. They refused. Their sole objective is the destruction of Israel.

 

[gipper]

It is not the homeland of the Palestinians. Their continued presence there is incompatible with the safety and well being of the Jews. If the Palestinians refuse to leave, they will need to take the consequences. I wish there was a gentle way of persuading the Palestinians to leave, but I am afraid there is not.

How is it not their homeland?

So, you have stolen must of their land already and murdered thousands of them. Apparently that’s not enough. You want it all. River to the sea. KILL THEM!

You have much in common with imperialist war criminals throughout history.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Clearly you’re an idiot. It fits the definition in every way.

We both know it doesn't. According to the Convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide, Israel's actions would have to be done with the intent to "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."

Clearly, Israel's actions in Gaza are not done with the intent to destroy any national, racial or religious group, so they do not constitute genocide.

 

[Deadstick]

Clearly you’re an idiot. It fits the definition in every way.

Nothing will fit the Zionists deranged definition.

 

[Deadstick]

We both know it doesn't. According to the Convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide, Israel's actions would have to be done with the intent to "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."

Clearly, Israel's actions in Gaza are not done with the intent to destroy any national, racial or religious group, so they do not constitute genocide.

Well you bastards have been dropping bombs on Gaza for 15 months and shooting anything that moves, if that isn't intent what is?

 

[Hector12]

How is it not their homeland?

So, you have stolen must of their land already and murdered thousands of them. Apparently that’s not enough. You want it all. River to the sea. KILL THEM!

You have much in common with imperialist war criminals throughout history.

It was not stolen. It was conquered in war.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well you bastards have been dropping bombs on Gaza for 15 months and shooting anything that moves, if that isn't intent what is?

It is done with the intent to prevent the Palestinians from ever being able to launch another Oct 7 massacre, but not "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well you bastards have been dropping bombs on Gaza for 15 months and shooting anything that moves, if that isn't intent what is?

Shooting anything that moves, but how many are dead?

 

[gipper]

It was not stolen. It was conquered in war.

Might makes right…until you’re on the losing end of that ignorant philosophy. Then you’ll cry like a little *****.

 

[gipper]

It is done with the intent to prevent the Palestinians from ever being able to launch another Oct 7 massacre, but not "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

You know nothing of the history of Israeli occupation.

Stop posting!

 

[Deadstick]

It was not stolen. It was conquered in war.

Well Hitler conquered most of Europe, doesn't make it right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well Hitler conquered most of Europe, doesn't make it right.

Muslims conquered the middle east and northern Africa, among other things.

 

[Hector12]

Well Hitler conquered most of Europe, doesn't make it right.

Hitler's conquests were unprovoked. Israel conquers in response to efforts to destroy Israel.

 

[Deadstick]

Hitler's conquests were unprovoked. Israel conquers in response to efforts to destroy Israel.

Bullshit!

 

[Hector12]

Bullshit!

The Arabs did not accept the creation of Israel in 1948. They tried to destroy Israel in 1967. Both times, fortunately, Israel won and expended her boarders.

 

[Lisa558]

The Egyptians don’t like Hamas and they don’t want Hamas stirring up people within their own borders or using their territory to launch attacks on to Israel.

Those who falsely claim they “don’t like Palestinians” ignore that and ignore the other issue which is that they don’t want Israel dumping millions of refugees on them.

So once Israel destroys HAMAS, what is the Egyptians’ excuse for not taking in their fellow Arabs?

And categorizing Israel as “wanting to dump millions of refugees on Egypt” conveniently skips over that most of these people hate Israel, hate Jews, and supported the barbaric massacre of October 7th.

 

[teddyearp]

So what? I mean seriously, RELIGION is NOT rational and the greater the religious fervor the greater the intolerance. Most have built upon other religions. Hell Christianity stole tbe ancient Gods of Europe and made them into demons. The more fundamentalist the tribe is the less willing they are to share sacred spaces that belong to multiple faiths. And currently no one trusts the other when it comes preserving the sanctity and access of religious spaces. It is not rational.

So what? Hmm, you used to be rational, what happened? Abbas and Hamas uses that exact piece of "information" to incite Palestinian riots and fatwas and jihads every single time. "Al-Aqsa was invaded today" when a few Jews go up on the Temple Mount. Or Palestinians stock rocks in Al-Aqsa so that when Israeli police have to enter to stop the rock throwing, "Jew police invade Al-Aqsa with tear gas desecrating . . . "

Come on man!

 

[Rigby5]

I would have to know more details on the history of the land and what they claim is "theirs", how long they have been cultivating it. As I said, Ottoman, Jordanian, and now Israeli land laws in Area C are complicated. There has been significant settlement expansion in that village, what was "lost"?

Ottoman law only meant the taxes had to be paid.
Land ownership was local based on historic precedent.
Jordan has nothing to do with the West Bank or any of Palestine.
Israel does not really exist legally, and it is actually British law that still would have precedence, from the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Treaty of San Remo.
The only complication is that common village pasture land is owned jointly.
Most of the land is based on historic family control going back thousands of years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ottoman law only meant the taxes had to be paid.
Land ownership was local based on historic precedent.
Jordan has nothing to do with the West Bank or any of Palestine.
Israel does not really exist legally, and it is actually British law that still would have precedence, from the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Treaty of San Remo.
The only complication is that common village pasture land is owned jointly.
Most of the land is based on historic family control going back thousands of years.

Israel, kicking loser Arab ass for over 75 years.

 

[Rigby5]

Starting with the obvious - Gaza had already been made ethnically homogeneous by the early 20th century. By that, I mean Gaza, which historically had a thriving Jewish population, was ethnically cleansed of all of her Jews. More than once, actually, in the last 100 years. I am at a loss as to how an already ethnically homogeneous geographical territory can be made MORE homogeneous.

Which leads me to conclude that you are using provocative language in order to incite or exaggerate or demonize.

With that out of the way, let's look at what you actually seem to be charging Israel with: forced displacement without humanitarian or military purpose and with specific intent for permanence.

My understanding of the situation (and I encourage correction with documentation) is that Northern Gaza is the location of Hamas' last remaining military capacity. And they are putting up a fierce fight there, making use of established military infrastructure.

There is a clear humanitarian purpose to evacuating areas of heavy fighting (or to permitting those who wish to leave).

There are also clear remaining military objectives, articulated since the beginning of the war, which have not been entirely resolved: dismantle Hamas, destroy all military infrastructure in Gaza, secure the return of the hostages.


Forced displacement is a positive action - something that is done and done with specific intent. Israel can't be held accountable for imagined future actions or inaction. (And as a secondary question - why is Israel responsible for Gaza's "day after"? Seems we are continually told that it would be illegal to annex Gaza; illegal to occupy Gaza; illegal NOT to occupy Gaza; and illegal to renounce all claims to the territory of Gaza. Law sure seems to be twisted when - no matter what option Israel chooses - she will be vilified for it.)

Sure. There is internal governmental disagreement about the conditions necessary for concluding the war. This does not prove intent beyond military objectives.

Israel is fighting a war with Hamas in northern Gaza. It is in northern Gaza as a military force engaged in combat. The civilian population has been evacuated (as much as possible). Again, I'm not sure how this proves your claim.

I'd have to evaluate those on a case-by-case. I'm sure I will find many of them vile and unacceptable. But this does not indicate this is Israeli government policy.

Nope. Siege for the purpose of denying resources to enemy combatants. Separate the combatants from the civilians, then starve the combatants of supplies. (It may be that you disagree with this as a strategy.) This does not prove intent beyond military objectives.

Again, Israel can not be held responsible for imagined future actions.

Reasonably expected outcomes of war of this intensity, especially considering Hamas' existing conditions, embedded military infrastructure, and methods of attack (As example, Hamas destroyed their power grid. Israel repaired it.) There is no evidence that Israel had intent for anything other than military objectives.

We have a disagreement of facts here. Are you specifically speaking of northern Gaza here?

Gaza is not dependent on UNWRA for distribution of aid during the war. Elimination of cooperation with UNWRA is not equivalent at all with forced displacement.

Sure. But "troubling" is not equivalent to nor does it prove forced displacement. It just proves fierce military operations.

The concern I have with your post is that you imagine holes to exist and plug those holes with ill intent.

Historically the Mideast does NOT have a history of a "thriving Jewish population".

The earliest indications are the Hebrew were Egyptians.
They were not attacked and Egypt has no slavery.
They went to Egypt around 1600 BC voluntarily, likely because of a drought.
Which places their origin as the Sinai, the same place they first went to after the Exodus from Egypt around 1200 BC.

Around 1000 BC, they invaded the Land of Canaan, but by massacring the Canaanite women and children, it was such as atrocity, they gained no rights to any land, and they were considered so abusive and arrogant, that EVERYONE continually kicked them out.
The Hittites, Mitanni, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Seleucids, and Romans each successively kicked them out every couple of hundred years when they snuck back in.

The ONLY time there were Hebrew nations was from around 1000 BC to 800 BC, and that was just the 3 villages of Israel, Judea, and Samaria.

There has been no significant Jewish population in Palestine since 160 AD, because with the Roman defeat of their rebellion, the Rabbinical Counsel passed the Diaspora Decree, where Jews are supposed to move out of the Mideast and atone for the sins of arrogance and pride, which caused the defeat by the Romans.
The 12 Jewish tribes firs went to Medina in Saudi Arabia, where they teamed up with Mohammed around 600 AD, and because his army when he defeated the Meccans.

Some Jews did return, but were massacred by the Christian Crusaders around 900 AD.

So there has not been any significant Jewish population since 160 AD, and it was not Moslems who attacked them.
It was everyone else.
The Moslems were their allies.

And Israel is NOT fighting a "war".
It is a criminal invasion of a sovereign country that had no military at all.
Palestine had been prevented from arms by the Ottoman Empire and the British.
So the Zionist invasion and take over from 1946 to 1949 was a war crime.
It was a treaty violation and massacre of unarmed civilians.
The British would have stopped it, but that is why first Menachim Begin murdered the British peacekeepers by blowing up the King David Hotel, before he started massacring hundreds of native villages like Deir Yassin.
The massacre of Deir Yassin is well documented since Albert Einstein happened to be in Jerusalem, saw the women and children being executed, and wrote letters about it to the NY Times.

And by the way, siege starvation tactics are totally illegal under the 1906 Geneva Conventions.

And by the way, Jews never lived in Gaza.
That was historically Phoenician and Philistine, which the Hebrew were never able to beat.

And you are wrong about the need for UNWRA.
The Israeli blockade prevents the Palestinians from conducting commerce in order to survive.
With out UNWRA, they would have had to take hostages much sooner, as the only alternative to starvation.
The problem is entirely Israel, and their criminal intent is clear from the 1967 criminal invasion of Jerusalem and the West Bank.