Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Karmadhi]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hamas is a genocidal terorist organization by their own admission. No responsible military defense leader could make a deal that would assure such an organization safeharbor, even in exchange for 200 hostages. Because the last act Hamas did killed 1000+ civilians. So the calculus doesn't make sense because they could easily kill another 1000 if they are allowed to grow like a cancer

Sorry Leo but your numbers are way off.

Its 700 civilians killed and Israel admitted some were killed by their own under the Hannibal doctrine. So most likely Hamas killed around 500 civilians.

Also by your own logic Israel is also genocidal by their own admission.

So is it ok for Hamas to attack Israel so Israel wont grow like cancer and devour more of Palestine?

Edited August 3 by Karmadhi

[Nivsch]

@Karmadhi Again I am totally for 2 state solution and think it is the just and sustainable solution.

But its important to see a balanced picture and remember also that 2 million more palestinians are already live in Israeli cities with full peace and freedom alongside the Jews. In Bat-Yam beach now.

Edited August 3 by Nivsch

[LSD-Rumi]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Surely you understand why Israeli leaders cannot accept such a deal.

Hamas is a genocidal terorist organization by their own admission. No responsible military defense leader could make a deal that would assure such an organization safeharbor, even in exchange for 200 hostages. Because the last act Hamas did killed 1000+ civilians. So the calculus doesn't make sense because they could easily kill another 1000 if they are allowed to grow like a cancer.

Was thinking the same. Israel will not go for anything less than exterminating Hammas. I understood that since day 1.

[hundreth]

9 hours ago, Raze said:

 

@hundreth would you consider the accounts from this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqusa-96WLs

and this

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bf4mfymnmn4t1wyvdkx4h/Letter.pdf?rlkey=z3ekl4u9gtya2p33ek6ud2zet&e=1&dl=0

to be war crimes?

I did not do a deep dive but I did watch the video and commentary about snipers shooting children.

Obviously, if an Israeli soldier intentionally shot a child in the head who was not a threat. That would be a war crime. Has some blood crazed Israeli soldier done such a thing? Of course, I have to believe they're out there.

But I think the larger question is if this is a systemic policy put forward. Because the implication is that it is. We don't know for all of the instances what happened before the bullet left the chamber. Was this child armed? Was this a stray? Was this child in the middle of an active combat skirmish between IDF and Hamas? You'd have to look into each situation, and it's extremely hard to do so.

I think if it comes out that commanders instructed soldiers to behave this way, we have a serious problem. Otherwise, it's going to be a messy affair trying to sort out what is what.

The end result is equally tragic.

[hundreth]

8 hours ago, Raze said:

I disagree. Their original charter had some language like that, but it was written by a small group that was under siege, and the founder said he isn’t against Jews as a group. Hamas has never targeted Jews outside of Palestine. They also replaced that charter with a new one that doesn’t call for the destruction of Israel.

The only reason they were able to do that was because Israel removed guards from Gaza to help settlers in the west bank and didn’t pay attention to intel they got warning them. When the IDF is paying attention to Gaza all Hamas can do is fire rockets which rarley hit their target until they’re forced to stop due to Israel bombardment.

That’s the thing, they put themselves in an impossible scenario.

Israel was refusing to negotiate with Hamas while also propping them up, this left a growing population of 2 million blockaded inside Gaza, their access to clean water was running out, 40% were unemployed, the situation was getting worse and they had no way out. At the same time Israel was slowly expanding the violent occupation in the West Bank. This doomed Israel to face extremism from Palestinians who were backed into a corner. 

Apparently they thought the losses they did take were so minor it was worth absorbing. But as I said, they got sloppy and left Gaza unguarded.

I understand negotiating a ceasefire before getting revenge militarily after Oct 7 would be political suicide, but this war has failed to retrieve the hostages and instead put Israel at huge safety risk by turning much of the world against them and making Palestinians even more desperate and extreme. 

They may still end up having to make a ceasefire deal with Hamas, which can potentially expand by recruiting the war orphans, or if they destroy Hamas, which may mean losing many more hostages, another extremist group could rise up and cause even more damage years down the line.

At this point I think even Israelis are starting to realize this, according to polling 60% said they are ok with a ceasefire if it means the hostages come back. But Netanyahu can’t do it because Smotrich and Ben Gvir said if he does they’ll leave his coalition which would dissolve the government and force elections, and he would lose the elections and then be tried for corruption and go to prison.

If safety and the hostages was the number 1 priority as insane as it sounds they’d have to do a ceasefire deal to get the hostages back right away, then they’d need to do a political solution to give Palestinians a path to a future to undercut Hamas. This is because the war effort risks hostage lives and is risking a wider war with Hezbollah and Iran which is a much larger safety risk than Hamas.  Of course no one in the government would be willing to do that because it would be career suicide and ideologically they oppose it so it couldn’t happen. It would be like if after 9/11 Bush didn’t invade Iraq or Afghanistan. We know now that would have damaged the US much less, but he would become a pariah because they’d view it as relenting to the enemy.

I’m not necessarily anti Zionist, I’m just against the way they went about doing it.

A couple of things:

1.) Do you really believe that Hamas doesn't promote extremely harmful and anti-semitic views about Jews as a whole? You only need to look at what they teach their youth to disavow you from that. Re: the updated charter, if you're going to point out Israeli government dishonesty, you should be able to do the same for Hamas.They updated their text, yet teach exactly the same rhetoric to their youth, and behave in exactly the same ways - it doesn't mean anything. 

2.) The Israelis have their responsibility in terms of allowing the attack to happen, but that doesn't absolve Hamas. So if Hamas attempted Oct 7th and were thwarted, does that absolve them? This is silly.

3.) Re: Number 1 priority - the return of the hostage is NOT the number one priority. You keep ignoring Leo's main point about future security. There may be more attacks in the future, but one thing is clear now: If you give the green light to an operation like Oct 7th, you've signed your death certificate. If you're ok with that, go ahead. 

[Raze]

5 hours ago, hundreth said:

A couple of things:

1.) Do you really believe that Hamas doesn't promote extremely harmful and anti-semitic views about Jews as a whole? You only need to look at what they teach their youth to disavow you from that. Re: the updated charter, if you're going to point out Israeli government dishonesty, you should be able to do the same for Hamas.They updated their text, yet teach exactly the same rhetoric to their youth, and behave in exactly the same ways - it doesn't mean anything. 

2.) The Israelis have their responsibility in terms of allowing the attack to happen, but that doesn't absolve Hamas. So if Hamas attempted Oct 7th and were thwarted, does that absolve them? This is silly.

3.) Re: Number 1 priority - the return of the hostage is NOT the number one priority. You keep ignoring Leo's main point about future security. There may be more attacks in the future, but one thing is clear now: If you give the green light to an operation like Oct 7th, you've signed your death certificate. If you're ok with that, go ahead. 

1) Hamas has never attempted to genocide the Jews. You might say they would if they could, but I don’t see how you can point to their actions as proof they are genocidal, committing terrorism doesn’t mean a group is genocidal. And more importantly, where is anyone suggesting Hamas be put in a position where it would have a capability to do that?

Also, like with all groups Hamas has different attitudes and factions that developed over time. It’s clear that Hamas became more extreme in response to Israeli violence and rejection of their diplomatic suggestions, I can give more detail on this if you don’t believe me. Basically violence towards them made them more extreme over time.

2)  I didn’t say Hamas is absolved, I don’t follow what this is responding to.

3) I’m not ignoring it, I’m also saying strategically this operation makes Israel less safe. For one, a wider war between Hezbollah and Iran is now a risk, this is a greater threat than Hamas will ever be. Secondly, if inflicting violence on Gaza in response to attacks is what secures Israel for the future, why did Oct 7 even happen when Israel bombarded Gaza multiple times prior? Why were those acts of violence not stopping it? If you’re saying because they didn’t go all the way and fully destroy Hamas, to that I’ll point out it’s unclear if Hamas is going to be fully destroyed even with this attack, and the same conditions that gave rise to Hamas would still be here and in fact much worse, which would stand to reason would give rise to more violent groups. Hamas only had its current strength because the PLO had given up violence but failed to achieve any goals, so Palestinians turned to Hamas. 

If you look at Israel’s history, the clear pattern is violence begets violence. Even Hezbollah itself was spawned from the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The two main adversaries it removed were Egypt and armed resistance from the PLO, and both happened thanks to diplomacy. I don’t see why now this would be any different. 

Edited August 3 by Raze

[Raze]

8 hours ago, Moutushi said:

@Leo Gura Found this discussion in line with your comment, I think Rudy Rochman has a balanced a relatively less biased Israeli position than other speakers out there. I obviously have major reservations and criticism of PBD's podcast and it's right wing leaning nature, and am certainly not promoting his channel by sharing this here. 

Now that Noam Chomsky is paralyzed, Rudy seems to be the last person who ever debated him

 

[Leo Gura]

14 hours ago, Raze said:

I disagree. Their original charter had some language like that, but it was written by a small group that was under siege, and the founder said he isn’t against Jews as a group. Hamas has never targeted Jews outside of Palestine. They also replaced that charter with a new one that doesn’t call for the destruction of Israel.

You are kidding yourself.

The top leader of Hamas did a public interview after Oct 7th where he clearly stated that Hamas would do another Oct 7th over and over again until all Jews were removed from their land.

So you are just wrong about what Hamas wants.

Their charter is meaningless. Hamas are genocidal lunatics, 10x worse than any Zionist.

Edited August 3 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

Hamas leader after Oct 7th:

Hamas are genocidal lunatics. This is not a matter for debate or opinion.

Stop trying to whataboutism this.

Edited August 4 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are kidding yourself.

The top leader of Hamas did a public interview after Oct 7th where he clearly stated that Hamas would do another Oct 7th over and over again until all Jews were removed from their land.

So you are just wrong about what Hamas wants.

Their charter is meaningless. Hamas are genocidal lunatics, 10x worse than any Zionist.

There are surely genocidal people inside Hamas but I think just painting the entire group as always pure evil and impossible to negotiate with is false and hurts chances for diplomacy. 
 

Here are short interviews with two historians who studied the history of Hamas, I think there is more nuanced to the group than that 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pjo3bJPrd8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIWm5Sw5Gc

 

Edited August 4 by Raze

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Raze said:

two historians who studied the history of Hamas

You don't need historians. Just listen to the leader of Hamas.

Edited August 4 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You don't need historians. Just listen to the leader of Hamas.

But why should we only believe that public statement and not the public statements on reconciliation or a ceasefire?

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Raze said:

But why should we only believe that public statement and not the public statements on reconciliation or a ceasefire?

If someone said to you: I'm gonna kill you and rape your mother.

And then later said: I'm gonna give your daughter a nice gift.

What you assume in that case is that he will rape your daughter too. Because no good faith actor would talk about raping your loved ones in the first place.

Stage Green is so gullible. Red will rape you. They have no interest in your peace. To them, peace is just an opportunity to rape you while you sleep.

Edited August 4 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If someone said to you: I'm gonna kill you and rape your mother.

And then later said: I'm gonna give your daughter a nice gift.

What you assume in that case is that he will rape your daughter too. Because no good faith actor would talk about raping your loved ones in the first place.

Stage Green is so gullible. Red will rape you. They have no interest in your peace. To them, peace is just an opportunity to rape you while you sleep.

Nothing about trying to negotiate with Hamas and giving Palestinians a political option necessarily puts Israelis at greater risk though. Labeling Hamas as purely bad actors to justify further military action just backs them into a corner and makes them more dangerous.

Based on your hypothetical what the Israeli response would be is to lock that guy in his house and beat him up every day and refuse to let him out, then be shocked when he attacks. Don’t let him near you or your family sure, but don’t purposefully provoke him to the point where he has no option.

Edited August 4 by Raze

[Husseinisdoingfine]

This needs to be pointed out that the leadership of Hamas has never cared for the well-being of Palestinian people. Hamas steals food truck aid designated to regular people, and their leaders are billionaires living luxuriously in Qatar.

An Israeli media outlet even made a music video about this:

Hamas is also not an organic grassroots movement, but an Iranian astroturf front.

[Raze]

3 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Hamas is also not an organic grassroots movement, but an Iranian astroturf front.

Iran just gives them money and supplies. You think if that ended the Palestinians would just give up and do nothing? They’ve been resisting since long before Iran was involved. 

Edited August 4 by Raze

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, Raze said:

Nothing about trying to negotiate with Hamas and giving Palestinians a political option necessarily puts Israelis at greater risk though.

Israel IS neogtiating with Hamas. So your point makes no sense.

Agreeing to a deal where Hamas releases all hostages and Israel allows Hamas to survive and continue to grow makes no sense from Israel's POV.

If you had a child rapist living next door to your family, and he went on TV saying that he wants to rape more children, you would want him kicked out of your neighborhood. You would not accept some peace deal where the rapist agrees to give back the children he holds in his dungeon and continues to hang around your children while talking on TV how much wants to rape your children.

Quote

Labeling Hamas as purely bad actors to justify further military action just backs them into a corner and makes them more dangerous.

It's hard to label them as anything else when they openly declare their commitment to do genocide.

Edited August 4 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Israel IS neogtiating with Hamas. So your point makes no sense.

They aren’t actually negotiating, saying your rule is you will keep attacking until they are all dead is not a negotiation. 
Even pro Israel outlets are posting articles saying Netanyahu is purposefully sabotaging negotiations 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-810551

Israel has ignored many opportunities to negotiate with Hamas

Quote

A timeline of Hamas truce proposals:

1988: Just one year after the group was founded, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar met the late top Israeli officials Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, and proposed that Israel withdraw from the 1967-occupied territories in exchange for a truce. This was before Hamas had built its armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. Also, in 1988, Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmad Yasin himself indicated a willingness to negotiate with Israel under the condition that it “first acknowledge the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and right of return to their land”.

1994: Hamas offered a truce to Israel after the abduction and killing of Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman. A year earlier, the Palestinian Authority (PA) had accepted the proposal of a Palestinian state comprised of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Hamas agreed to that proposal.

1995: Hamas again proposed a 10-year truce based on the same condition of Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

1996: In March, after Israel assassinated Hamas military leader Yahya Ayyash in January, the movement offered a ceasefire.

1997: September: Days before Israel attempted to assassinate Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal in the Jordanian capital, Amman, the movement offered Israel a 10-year truce. October: After his release from Israeli prison, Hamas founder Yasin renewed the call for a ceasefire. November: Hamas again proposed a truce. The Qassam Brigades said attacks against Israeli civilians would stop if Israel stopped targeting Palestinian civilians.

1999: Yasin made another ceasefire offer provided Israel withdrew from the 1967 territories. In a letter to European diplomats, Hamas offered to cease all hostilities in exchange for Israeli withdrawal, evacuation of settlements, and release of Palestinian prisoners.

2003: In December, Yasin offered a ceasefire on the condition that Israel withdraw from the Palestinian territories. He was killed four months later in an Israeli attack.

2004: Yasin’s successor and Hamas co-founder Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi again proposed a 10-year truce. Israel killed him one month after Yasin.

2006: Hamas again offered a 10-year truce that would be “automatically renewed if [Israel] commits to restoring the full and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to them within a final solution that matches what is accepted by the PLO”.

2007: Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh repeated the group’s call for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

2008: Hamas leader Meshaal again offered a 10-year truce, which he repeated a year later.

2014: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad offered a 10-year truce in exchange for the lifting of the Israeli blockade and release of Palestinian prisoners.

2015: Hamas proposed a long-term ceasefire in exchange for the lifting of the blockade.

2017: Hamas presented its revised charter announcing that it accepted a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders.

 

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/1/22/how-israel-has-repeatedly-rejected-hamas-truce-offers

Quote

Some Hamas officials are signaling that the militant group could give up armed struggle against Israel if the Palestinians get an independent state in territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/middleeast/hamas-officials-say-group-willing-to-disarm-if-palestinian-state-is-established-mime-intl/index.html

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's hard to label them as anything else when they openly declare their commitment to do genocide.

- Israel’s ruling government party Likud has a charter that to this day calls for Israel control from the river to the sea, meaninf destruction of Palestine, should Palestinians refuse to negotiate with Israel and just declare them genocidal with no hope? That’s would mean truly endless conflict 

- the problem I have with this is there is evidence that they are purposefully using this designation for Hamas as an excuse to never resolve the conflict 

Wikileaks leaked a transcript from Israel’s then intelligence director Yadlin saying

Quote

Yadlin said Israel would be "happy" if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state.

Israel’s finance minister states

Quote

The Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset,” Smotrich said at the time. “It’s a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council.”

Eyewitnesses claim Netanyahu made similar comments

Others have suggested Israel should have negotiated with Hamas such as George Soros, and former Israeli security service director Ami Ayalon. Notably they are pro two states whereas Likud members like Netanyahu aren’t.

Edited August 4 by Raze

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

They aren’t actually negotiating, saying your rule is you will keep attacking until they are all dead is not a negotiation. 

Well, yeah, that was my point.

You can't negotiate with a proud genocidal terrorist.

The problem for Hamas is that if they continue like this they will simply be exterminated. Okay then. They got what they wanted: to die as martyrs.

Hamas' genocidal strategy is stupid because they are too weak to carry it out. Which just means they will die.

Edited August 4 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, yeah, that was my point.

You can't negotiate with a proud genocidal terrorist.

The problem for Hamas is that if they continue like this they will simply be exterminated. It's a self-defeating strategy.

Israel refused to respond to peace proposals or peaceful protests so they went for kamikaze actions to try and trap Israel into hurting itself and revive their cause, and it looks like it’s working.

Netanyahu personally helped fund Hamas, I don’t buy that he thinks you can’t negotiate with them when he paid them. Giving them money while refusing to solve what motivates their cause is way riskier than trying to undercut their militancy with negotiations.

Israel negotiated with the PLO who also used to attack them.

Edited August 4 by Raze