Israel-Hamas War 2023

[viper37]

It ain't a viable solution so far as it's the same nation.  You can't create two Palestinian state with two different status for its citizens.

Koreans have two states.  Chinese have two states.  The Irish have two states.  Germans used to have two states.  Before that they had dozens.  So did Italians.

Austria and Germany evolved independently, mostly because of different religion between the two regions.

As for Ireland, I don't think it's a model to be emulated given the level of violence there has been since 1917.

Even if there were two states, there would need to be guarantees for the people of Gaza to be able to travel outside of the territory, to eventually reach the West Bank.  And you have not addressed the right of return, or any compensation for the refugees. Another point on which Israel is unwilling to cede anything.

Gaza being contained is exactly the situation since 2005.  It did not prevent the last attack, nor any of the rocket attacks since then.  Hamas will never surrender and it will never accept any political solution.  Israel has never shown any inclination to support opponents of the Hamas or to help Palestinians protesting against the Hamas and the current government has done everything in its power to sideline the PA.

If we go back to Germany, could you create a country out of Cologne, Stuttgart, Essen, Leipzig and leave the rest colonized by France and the USSR? With all of Germans deported to these cities?  Would that have been viable after WWII?

[Admiral Yi]

Austria and Germany evolved independently, mostly because of different religion between the two regions.

As for Ireland, I don't think it's a model to be emulated given the level of violence there has been since 1917.

Even if there were two states, there would need to be guarantees for the people of Gaza to be able to travel outside of the territory, to eventually reach the West Bank.  And you have not addressed the right of return, or any compensation for the refugees. Another point on which Israel is unwilling to cede anything.

Gaza being contained is exactly the situation since 2005.  It did not prevent the last attack, nor any of the rocket attacks since then.  Hamas will never surrender and it will never accept any political solution.  Israel has never shown any inclination to support opponents of the Hamas or to help Palestinians protesting against the Hamas and the current government has done everything in its power to sideline the PA.

If we go back to Germany, could you create a country out of Cologne, Stuttgart, Essen, Leipzig and leave the rest colonized by France and the USSR? With all of Germans deported to these cities?  Would that have been viable after WWII?

Nor does it address water rights, or transhipment of goods between Gaza and the WB, or a host of other issues.

My idea only addresses one issue: the moral absurdity of making peace with people who have no interest in peace.  So it takes those people out of the equation.  The inhabitants of the WB should not pay for the sins of Gaza.

[Grey Fox]

Ontario was considered has a possible destination for what became the Darfur declaration.

[Jacob]

So apparently - motivated by the current conflict - a 71-year old American used a knife to attack a 32-year old woman and a 6-year old boy in Chicago, wounding the woman and killing the boy

[Razgovory]

I'm not aware of any Germans living in temporary refugee camps since 1945 and being disallowed to return to Germany.  Can you enlighten me on this part of history?

The Germans were forced to flee from their homes to Germany.  The Allied powers didn't force them to live in refugee camps indefinitely, unlike the Arabs who had no interest in resettling refugees.  I don't know how long they did live in refugee camps though.  From 1945-1989 they were prevented from going back to their homes.  After that I don't think they cared much.

As for the second Holocaust, it is doubtful.  Given that the only massacre to occur in the war were perpetrated by Jews against Arab civilians, which prompted other Arabs to flee, it's hard to understand this fear.  The war begun after Jewish militants assassinated Palestinians, and Palestinians reciprocated in killing Jewish civilians.  Not the first time, nor the last it would happen in this territory.

The Palestinians massacred many Jews in 20's and 30's.  The anti-Jewish riots took place all across the Arab world killing many.

An example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa_Oil_Refinery_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Tripolitania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

They openly spoke of pushing the Jews into the sea and getting rid of the "Zionist plague".

Jews might have been expelled from Palestine though.  But like you said, it's ok for the victors to displace people they don't like, so no big deal here.  Who cares about a couple million refugees?  I'm sure Europe, US and Canada would have found some room for them at the time.

I didn't say that.  You are still making things up.

And I'd like to also remind you that neither side agreed with the UN partition plan.  Both the Jews of the British Mandate and the Arab nations rejected it.  You can pin the blame on the Arabs as much as you want, but both are guilty here.

You ignorant rube, the Jews accepted the plan.  There was some dissent but there was general acceptance.

You didn't answer my question: Does Israel have a right to exist?  Does it have a right to defend itself?

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kufj_iN41Gc

Hama dude proposes swapping Palestinian Americans for Hamas members in prison in the US and Israel.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aoOW0msPdOo

Israel dropping leaflets urging evacuation.

[The Brain]

So apparently - motivated by the current conflict - a 71-year old American used a knife to attack a 32-year old woman and a 6-year old boy in Chicago, wounding the woman and killing the boy

Any of the involved people Palestinians or Israelis?

[Valmy]

Who would, really?

I would. I would in a second. And for the exact same reason the Irish accepted the partition even though it led to civil war, because it was the best they could be expected to get. I would basically agree to anything that got whatever crumbs the Palestinian people could get. Because the situation has been basically lost since the 1970s. And once I had a few bits of territory, that is a bases to make something better happen in the future.

Refusing a deal because it is bad when no better options are likely to ever emerge is borderline criminal. You need to act in the best interests of your people, not in pursuit of some fantastical objective that is not practically possible.

It's like the 13 colonies sitting at a table with England in 1778 and England partitioning all the colonies to give pieces of the territory to the newly formed US and keep the rest as colonies.

I mean we had an alliance with France in 1778. And I don't think our strategic positions were even comparable.

It is more like the Confederacy sitting at the table in 1865 and refusing any terms and determining to fight on forever and then were occupied by the Federal Army for 60 years and refused to even consider allowing some of the Confederacy to get independence.

As for Ireland, I don't think it's a model to be emulated given the level of violence there has been since 1917.

I think Ireland came out of that situation pretty well by accepting a shitty deal. Would a victorious Ireland be able to get a better deal for a united Ireland after their conquest of London? Sure. Would there have been no violence in Ireland after such a victory? Doubtful. But of course this is fantasy territory. Such a victory was not likely.

Granted it was more likely than a Palestinian one in the 21st Century.

[crazy canuck]

My impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?

As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.

You think it wasn't a poor decision?

I think you have a poor understanding of the situation when you say that Gaza attacked Israel. Hamas attacked Israel.

Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization, not a nation and not Gaza.

And for those of you who like to think that you share the majority opinion, you might want to listen to the American president who also says that the enemy is Hamas, not the civilians in Gaza.

[crazy canuck]

2. Most western countries require you to pledge to respect the laws and values of their society when you naturalize. By advocating genocide you demonstrate that you lied during your pledge.

Call for mass persecution of citizenry through new laws also seems against western values, to me, off to jail for you too?

It ain't a viable solution so far as it's the same nation.  You can't create two Palestinian state with two different status for its citizens.

Koreans have two states.  Chinese have two states.  The Irish have two states.  Germans used to have two states.  Before that they had dozens.  So did Italians.

All your examples are not or were not the most viable or stable entities now are they?

[crazy canuck]

Senator Graham, on meet the press, said this morning that Israel has agreed to turn the water back on.

Let's hope that's true. 

[Tamas]

In the UK, the prime minister's official spokesperson said it was "abhorrent" that pro-Palestinian protesters reportedly displayed images of Hamas attackers during demonstrations.

It comes after the Metropolitan police appealed for information about two women who had pictures of paragliders taped to the back of their jackets at protests in London at the weekend.

Rishi Sunak's spokesperson told reporters: "It is abhorrent. It is hard to conceive of a situation where people would want to show support for individuals that committed a terrorist attack which saw children, babies slaughtered. It is hard to put into words."

PA Media reports that the prime ministers spokesperson was also critical of the BBC, which has been accused of not using the description "terrorists" for Hamas in news broadcasts in the UK. The spokesperson, who traditionally in UK politics speaks on the record but is not named, said:

The legal position is that Hamas is a proscribed terrorist group – the term terrorist is an accurate legal description. The BBC has described other attacks as terrorism – 9/11, 7/7, the Bataclan. To put it into context, the attack we witnessed in Israel was the third deadliest terror attack in the world since 1970. So there is no restriction on the BBC using that term.

[Josquius]

God knows what those idiots are playing at.
Even if they are pro-Hamas surely they should realise its in Hamas' favour too to concentrate on the Palestinian civilians bound to suffer.
All they're doing there is damaging the pro-Palestinian side as a whole.
Then again maybe that's the 4D chess they're playing? Damage sympathy for Palestinians in the west and really draw out the rabid support Israel no matter what aspects to further bring together Islamicists, tankies, etc...?

[The Brain]

My impression is that Gaza's decision to go to full active war with Israel by attacking civilians in a very controversial way was a poor one by conventional standards. How do you protect actors against making poor decisions?

As far as undedicated impressions go, that is a right up there.

You think it wasn't a poor decision?

I think you have a poor understanding of the situation when you say that Gaza attacked Israel. Hamas attacked Israel.

Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization, not a nation and not Gaza.

And for those of you who like to think that you share the majority opinion, you might want to listen to the American president who also says that the enemy is Hamas, not the civilians in Gaza.

My impression is that Hamas have been the rulers of Gaza for some years. You're saying they haven't? And why would civilians be enemies? I don't follow.