New War In Israel / Gaza

[Danioover9000]

@jaylimix

2 hours ago, jaylimix said:

Those building were already cleared of people.

I guess you don't know that multiple explosives need to be drilled into the wall and placed at strategic locations within and around the building.

There is no one in those building, unless of course some fool tried to come into a warzone which the IDF have already made known.

Buildings are destroyed so that those terrorists do not slither back in.

   Cool, but what about the Gazan civilians, the women and children? They have no home to return to as their homes, and buildings are RUBLE! That is part of the UN South African Genocide, and genocide doesn't have to only be kill all men women and children, it includes displacing population as Israel is already doing to Gaza. It's  genocide if it includes mass killings, mass displacement of the population, destruction of facilities that handle birthrates like hospitals, which also handles aid and care, destruction of food and water supplies which kills people via starvation, and genocidal intent. Israel ticks all the boxes, and why pro Israel are so blind and in denial about this is insane. How are ya'll so...

Edited January 9 by Danioover9000

[Merkabah Star]

 

[kenway]

3 hours ago, jaylimix said:

Those building were already cleared of people.

No-one is suggesting they had people in them.

The demolitions are seen within the context of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian residents, to be replaced by Israeli Jewish residents. As with the bulldozer razings in the West Bank.

3 hours ago, jaylimix said:

I guess you don't know that multiple explosives need to be drilled into the wall and placed at strategic locations within and around the building.

I do know that, but thanks for the sanctimonious strawman.

3 hours ago, jaylimix said:

There is no one in those building, unless of course some fool tried to come into a warzone which the IDF have already made known.

See first response.

3 hours ago, jaylimix said:

Buildings are destroyed so that those terrorists do not slither back in.

This is just an idea you've had relative to your xenophobia concerning Palestinians. It's not based on reality nor objectivity.

1.9 million Palestinians are currently displaced without homes. That's not by accident.

[Merkabah Star]

This an extension of the young Turks vid I posted above.

Mike Pence writing his name on a bomb? Horrid thing to do.

the woman the idf shot who was waving a white flag? Not the most moral army in the world. Far from it.

 

 

[jaylimix]

2 hours ago, Merkabah Star said:

Mike Pence writing his name on a bomb? Horrid thing to do.

the woman the idf shot who was waving a white flag? Not the most moral army in the world. Far from it.

Writing name on the bombs is meant to be read as:

~ To Hamas terrorists, love from Mike Pence

On your second point, according to Israel, Hamas shoots at people to prevent them from leaving, to keep them as human shields, making it difficult for the IDF to do an airstrike or tank strike on them.

You don't really know who shoots at the woman, all you have is a narrative.

[jaylimix]

4 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

It's  genocide if it includes mass killings, mass displacement of the population, destruction of facilities that handle birthrates like hospitals, which also handles aid and care, destruction of food and water supplies which kills people via starvation, and genocidal intent. Israel ticks all the boxes, and why pro Israel are so blind and in denial about this is insane.

What if I were to tell you that I am in favor of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, not through death but through sending them away to other Arab countries, even non-Arab countries such as Congo ?

75 years of terrorism, actually even before the founding of Israel, longer than 75 years of terrorism.

Edited January 9 by jaylimix

[kenway]

25 minutes ago, jaylimix said:

What if I were to tell you that I am in favor of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, not through death but through sending them away to other Arab countries, even non-Arab countries such as Congo ?

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule129#:~:text=into occupied territory.-,Rule 129.,imperative military reasons so demand.

Rule 129.

The Act of Displacement

Note: This chapter addresses forced displacement of civilians for reasons related to an armed conflict, whether within or outside the bounds of national territory. It thus covers the treatment of both internally displaced persons and persons who have crossed an international border (refugees). The only exception to this is Rule 130, which covers both forcible and non-forcible transfer of populations into occupied territory.

Rule 129.

A. Parties to an international armed conflict may not deport or forcibly transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, in whole or in part, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.

B. Parties to a non-international armed conflict may not order the displacement of the civilian population, in whole or in part, for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.

Practice

Volume II, Chapter 38, Section A.

Summary

State practice establishes these rules as norms of customary international law applicable in international (A) and non-international (B) armed conflicts respectively.

International armed conflicts

The prohibition of the deportation or transfer of civilians goes back to the Lieber Code, which provides that “private citizens are no longer … carried off to distant parts”.[1] Under the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), “deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory” constitutes a war crime.[2] The prohibition of the transfer or deportation of civilians is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[3] In addition, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, it is a grave breach of these instruments to deport or transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.[4] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the deportation or transfer [by the Occupying Power] of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[5]

Numerous military manuals specify the prohibition of unlawful deportation or transfer of civilians in occupied territory.[6] It is an offence under the legislation of many States to carry out such deportations or transfers.[7] There is case-law relating to the Second World War supporting the prohibition.[8] It is also supported by official statements and by many resolutions adopted by international organizations and international conferences, including condemnations of alleged cases of deportation and transfer.[9]

The Supreme Court of Israel has stated on several occasions, however, that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention was not meant to apply to the deportation of selected individuals for reasons of public order and security,[10] or that Article 49 did not form part of customary international law and that therefore deportation orders against individual citizens did not contravene the domestic law of Israel.[11]

Non-international armed conflicts

The prohibition of displacing the civilian population in non-international armed conflicts is set forth in Additional Protocol II.[12] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand,” constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts.[13] This rule is contained in other instruments pertaining also to non-international armed conflicts.[14] It should also be noted that, under the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and of the International Criminal Court, deportation or transfer of the civilian population constitutes a crime against humanity.[15]

The rule prohibiting the forcible displacement of the civilian population is also specified in a number of military manuals which are applicable in or have been applied in non-international armed conflicts.[16] The legislation of many States makes it an offence to violate this rule.[17] The prohibition is also supported by official statements and reported practice in the context of non-international armed conflicts.[18]

In a resolution on basic principles for the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts, adopted in 1970, the UN General Assembly affirmed that “civilian populations, or individual members thereof, should not be the object of … forcible transfers”.[19] In a resolution on the protection of women and children in emergency and armed conflict, adopted in 1974, the UN General Assembly declared that “forcible eviction, committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in occupied territories, shall be considered criminal”.[20] The UN Security Council, UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have condemned instances of forced displacement in international armed conflicts but also in non-international armed conflicts, for example, in the context of the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi and Sudan.[21]

The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent adopted two resolutions stressing the prohibition of forced displacement of the civilian population.[22] The ICRC has called on parties to both international and non-international armed conflicts to respect this rule.[23]

Evacuation of the civilian population

In both international and non-international armed conflicts, State practice establishes an exception to the prohibition of displacement in cases where the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons (such as clearing a combat zone) require the evacuation for as long as the conditions warranting it exist. This exception is contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol II.[24] The possibility of evacuation is also provided for in numerous military manuals.[25] It is contained in the legislation of many States.[26]

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement prohibit the “arbitrary” displacement of persons, which is defined as including displacement in situations of armed conflict, “unless the security of civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”.[27] The exception of “imperative military reasons” can never cover cases of removal of the civilian population in order to persecute it.[28]

The Fourth Geneva Convention further specifies that evacuations may not involve displacement outside the bounds of the occupied territory “except where for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement”.[29] With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II specifies that evacuations may never involve displacement outside the national territory.[30]

Prevention of displacement

State practice also underlines the duty of parties to a conflict to prevent displacement caused by their own acts, at least those acts which are prohibited in and of themselves (e.g., terrorizing the civilian population or carrying out indiscriminate attacks). As stated in the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement:

All authorities and international actors shall respect and ensure respect for their obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, in all circumstances, so as to prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to displacement of persons.[31]

Ethnic cleansing

“Ethnic cleansing” aims to change the demographic composition of a territory. In addition to displacement of the civilian population of a territory, this can be achieved through other acts which are prohibited in and of themselves such as attacks against civilians (see Rule 1), murder (see Rule 89) and rape and other forms of sexual violence (see Rule 93). These acts are prohibited regardless of the nature of the conflict and have been widely condemned.

[1] - Lieber Code, Article 23 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 20).

[2] - IMT Charter (Nuremberg), Article 6(b) (ibid., § 1).

[3] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, first paragraph (ibid., § 3).

[4] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 147 (ibid., § 4); Additional Protocol I, Article 85(4)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 9).

[5] - ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) (ibid., § 18).

[6] - See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 39–40), Australia (ibid., §§ 41–42), Canada (ibid., § 43), Colombia (ibid., § 44), Croatia (ibid., § 45), Ecuador (ibid., § 46), France (ibid., §§ 47–49), Germany (ibid., § 50), Hungary (ibid., § 51), Italy (ibid., § 52), Netherlands (ibid., § 53), New Zealand (ibid., § 54), Nigeria (ibid., § 55), Philippines (ibid., § 56), South Africa (ibid., § 57), Spain (ibid., § 58), Sweden (ibid., § 59), Switzerland (ibid., § 60), United Kingdom (ibid., § 61) and United States (ibid., §§ 62–64).

[7] - See, e.g., the legislation (ibid., §§ 65–156).

[8] - See, e.g., China, War Crimes Military Tribunal of the Ministry of National Defence, Takashi Sakai case (ibid., § 159); France, General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Roechling case (ibid., § 157); Israel, District Court of Jerusalem, Eichmann case (ibid., § 161); Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, Zimmermann case (ibid., § 166); Poland, Supreme National Tribunal at Poznan, Greiser case (ibid., § 157); United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krauch (I.G. Farben Trial) case, Krupp case, Milch case, List (Hostages Trial) case (ibid., § 157) and Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) case (ibid., § 157).

[9] - See, e.g., the statements of Switzerland (ibid., § 186) and United States (ibid., § 188–190); UN General Assembly, Res. 2675 (XXV) (ibid., § 204), Res. 3318 (XXIX) (ibid., § 205), Res. 36/147 D, 37/88 D, 38/79 E, 39/95 E and 40/161 E (ibid., § 206), Res. 36/147 C, 37/88 C, 38/79 D, 39/95 D and 40/161 D (ibid., § 207); League of Arab States, Council, Res. 4430 (ibid., § 223), Res. 5169 (ibid., § 224) and Res. 5324 (ibid., § 225); 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Res. I (ibid., § 226).

[10] - See, e.g., Israel, High Court, Abu-Awad case (ibid., § 162) and Affo and Others case (ibid., § 165).

[11] - See, e.g., Israel, High Court, Kawasme and Others case (ibid., § 163) and Nazal and Others case (ibid., § 164); see also Yoram Dinstein, “The Israeli Supreme Court and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: Deportations”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 23, 1993, pp. 1–26.

[12] - Additional Protocol II, Article 17 (adopted by consensus) (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 10).

[13] - ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(e)(viii) (ibid., § 19).

[14] - See, e.g., Agreement on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 2.3 (ibid., § 28); Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Philippines, Part IV, Article 3(7) (ibid., § 35).

[15] - ICTY Statute, Article 5(d) (ibid., § 31); ICTR Statute, Article 3(d) (ibid., § 32); ICC Statute, Article 7(1)(d) (ibid., § 16).

[16] - See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia (ibid., §§ 41–42), Canada (ibid., § 43), Colombia (ibid., § 44), Croatia (ibid., § 45), Ecuador (ibid., § 46), France (ibid., § 49), Germany (ibid., § 50), Hungary (ibid., § 51), Italy (ibid., § 52), Netherlands (ibid., § 53), New Zealand (ibid., § 54), Philippines (ibid., § 56), South Africa (ibid., § 57) and Spain (ibid., § 58).

[17] - See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 66), Australia (ibid., §§ 67 and 69), Azerbaijan (ibid., § 70), Belarus (ibid., § 73), Belgium (ibid., § 74), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 75), Cambodia (ibid., § 79), Canada (ibid., § 81), Colombia (ibid., §§ 83–84), Congo (ibid., § 86), Croatia (ibid., § 89), El Salvador (ibid., § 93), Estonia (ibid., § 95), Ethiopia (ibid., § 96), Finland (ibid., § 97), Georgia (ibid., § 99), Germany (ibid., § 100), Kazakhstan (ibid., § 108), Latvia (ibid., § 110), Republic of Moldova (ibid., § 120), Netherlands (ibid., § 121), New Zealand (ibid., § 123), Nicaragua (ibid., § 125), Niger (ibid., § 127), Paraguay (ibid., § 131), Poland (ibid., § 133), Portugal (ibid., § 134), Russian Federation (ibid., § 136), Slovenia (ibid., § 140), Spain (ibid., § 141), Tajikistan (ibid., § 143), Ukraine (ibid., § 146), United Kingdom (ibid., § 148), Uzbekistan (ibid., § 152) and Yugoslavia (ibid., § 154); see also the legislation of Bulgaria (ibid., § 77), Czech Republic (ibid., § 92), Hungary (ibid., § 101), Romania (ibid., § 135) and Slovakia (ibid., § 139), the application of which is not excluded in time of non-international armed conflict, and the draft legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 65), Burundi (ibid., § 78), El Salvador (ibid., § 93), Jordan (ibid., § 107), Nicaragua (ibid., § 126) and Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 144).

[18] - See, e.g., the statements of Afghanistan (ibid., § 168), Botswana (ibid., § 169) Japan (ibid., § 175), Netherlands (ibid., §§ 177–178), New Zealand (ibid., § 180), Nigeria (ibid., § 181), Russian Federation (ibid., § 183), Spain (ibid., § 185), United Kingdom (ibid., § 187) and United States (ibid., § 190), and the reported practice of Jordan (ibid., § 176) and United States (ibid., § 191).

[19] - UN General Assembly, Res. 2675 (XXV) (adopted by 109 votes in favour, none against and 8 abstentions) (ibid., § 204).

[20] - UN General Assembly, Res. 3318 (XXIX) (adopted by 110 votes in favour, none against and 14 abstentions) (ibid., § 205).

[21] - See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 752 (ibid., § 193) and Res. 819 (ibid., § 194); UN Security Council, Statement by the President (ibid., § 201); UN General Assembly, Res. 55/116 (ibid., § 212); UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/77 (ibid., § 212) and Res. 1996/73 (ibid., § 213).

[22] - 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Res. II (ibid., § 228) and Res. IV (ibid., § 229).

[23] - See, e.g., ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law (ibid., § 237) and Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola (ibid., § 240).

[24] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, second paragraph (ibid., § 245); Additional Protocol II, Article 17(1) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 246).

[25] - See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 250–251), Cameroon (ibid., § 253), Canada (ibid., § 254), Croatia (ibid., § 255), Dominican Republic (ibid., § 256), France (ibid., § 257), Germany (ibid., § 258), Hungary (ibid., § 259), Israel (ibid., § 260), Italy (ibid., § 261), Kenya (ibid., § 262), Netherlands (ibid., § 264), New Zealand (ibid., § 265), Philippines (ibid., § 266), Spain (ibid., § 267), Sweden (ibid., § 268), Switzerland (ibid., § 269), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 270–271) and United States (ibid., §§ 272–274).

[26] - See, e.g., the legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 275), Australia (ibid., § 276), Azerbaijan (ibid., § 277), Canada (ibid., § 278), Congo (ibid., § 279), Cuba (ibid., § 280), Ireland (ibid., § 281), Netherlands (ibid., § 282), New Zealand (ibid., § 283), Norway (ibid., § 284), Rwanda (ibid., § 286) and United Kingdom (ibid., § 288); see also the draft legislation of Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 287).

[27] - Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, Principle 6(2) (ibid., § 248).

[28] - See, e.g., Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 45, fourth paragraph (ibid., § 2).

[29] - Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49.

[30] - Additional Protocol II, Article 17(2) (adopted by consensus).

[31] - Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, Principle 5 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 34).

[kenway]

[Lila9]

In the meantime, Hamas terrorists in the West Bank are committing terror attacks against Israeli people, including Israeli Arabs, every day.

Some attacks are successful, while others are not.

The Israeli army is working hard to confiscate their weapons and arrest them, aiming to prevent potential terror attacks against us.

There is suspicion that tunnels have been built from the West Bank to Jewish villages, intending to carry out terror attacks similar to the one on October 7. They appear highly inspired by it and may seek to repeat it with more Israeli victims this time.

Hamas terrorists are also still launching rockets from Gaza, hiding between Gaza civilians, UNRA and other curropted human rights organizations in the world which are covertly cooperating with Hamas.

However, there is no mention from Al Jazeera or BBC. lol😂 

They are so anti-Israel (for yearssss) and deeply entrenched in their false narrative that Hamas and Palestinians are innocent victims.

As a result, they ignore a significant and crucial part of the reality in which Israel has always been and is still under terror attacks, instigated by... surprise surprise... Hamas, Palestinians who support Hamas, and all the organizations with anti-Israel agenda, covertly cooperating with them (like UNRA and STC), which have Israeli blood on their hands.

They are not victims and not innocent, and if they threaten Israeli lives and existence, they deserve to be fought back.

[Karmadhi]

@Lila9 This is proof that brutally crushing resistance and treating Palestinians as lesser and cleansing them does not work.

You take out Hamas in Gaza, another gets created in West Bank.

I had a conversation with some friends, they said West Bank should fight like Hamas did in Gaza because eventually Israel wants to kick them all out and treat them like subhuman trash.

Better die fighting.

This is the sentiment people have about Israel which motivates them to do stuff like you wrote.

Something fundamental needs to change, giving Palestinians right and some of their land back.

Otherwise you take out 1 head, 2 others replace it. Forever and ever. Endless cycle of violence.

 

[zazen]

Besides the details, doesn’t this whole conflict basically boil down to when Israel was created, how it was created, and how it currently exists.

Israel was established during a time when nationalism was popular but colonialism wasn’t. It was a humanitarian cause done on the back of European atrocities to the Jews culminating in the Holocaust - it was colonial power with the entitled colonial mindset which aided its establishment.  British colonial interests married to a humanitarian one. The first Zionist bank established was named the ‘Jewish Colonial Trust’ - the endeavour was supported by the ‘Palestine Jewish Colonization Association’ which willed its land assets to todays Jewish National Fund that which serves as a global fundraiser for Israeli settlement expansion.

The right to self determination and national consciousness came into the world, fine - but this doesn’t mean the right to self determination at the expense of dominating another group. The Palestinian locals were expected (without consultation) to give away a majority share of their land (56% in the partition plan) to a minority of recently arrived settlers who had been there at most 20 years and only made up a third of the population.

If Israel’s creation had occurred this way a few decades earlier it would have encountered less resistance and condemnation as it does in modern times as back then might was right. The few nations that remain today (Anglosphere) from colonisation developed over a much larger span of time - multiple decades to centuries and during a time where strength was respected and accepted once it had established itself over weakness.

Israel faces ongoing conflict and condemnation due to its perceived artificial creation and its ongoing occupation and subjugation of the inhabitants unlike states that organically evolve more naturally over time due to the geographic, political and cultural situation of the land and people. Remaining states that started as colonies do so by integrating the locals in a democracy. Israel wasn’t a grassroots movement so much as it was a top down implant. People from elsewhere revived a dormant language (Hebrew) used mostly in the context of religion for their newly formed nation, claimed it as their native tongue and tied it to their ancestral land. This creation was not in harmony with the region's natural circumstances and naturally caused disruption as it was thrust on already existing people for which it had little context or receptivity.  

Would it be correct then to say the project of Israel was a unnatural foreign imposition done in such a rapid space of time - in a time when colonialism was dying and in a world which now rejects any remains of it including the remaining colonial mindset that entitles one to take another's land and subjugate any locals resistance to this, which then gaslights this resistance as terrorism and any criticism as racist. The region still feels the shockwaves of Israel's inception and the locals are still undergoing oppressive dispossession till today.

Edited January 9 by zazen

[Lila9]

42 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

@Lila9 This is proof that brutally crushing resistance and treating Palestinians as lesser and cleansing them does not work.

You take out Hamas in Gaza, another gets created in West Bank.

I had a conversation with some friends, they said West Bank should fight like Hamas did in Gaza because eventually Israel wants to kick them all out and treat them like subhuman trash.

Better die fighting.

This is the sentiment people have about Israel which motivates them to do stuff like you wrote.

Something fundamental needs to change, giving Palestinians right and some of their land back.

Otherwise you take out 1 head, 2 others replace it. Forever and ever. Endless cycle of violence.

 

How can we trust people who commit such brutal acts towards innocent Israelis just because they happen to be Israelis?

They killed a woman, Shani Louk, among many Israelis who were ideologically pro-peace. They did that so brutally, how can such people be trusted with a state?

https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/hypel11uu6

Would you trust terrorists who are capable of this? Would you allow them more power, given they are passionate about killing you and are living near you, your children, family, and friends?

The Slaughter 710 on Telegram:

https://t.me/the_slaughter710

So far, they haven't shown a geniune desire for peace, instead, each year, they demonstrate a commitment to replacing Israel with Palestine and doing whatever it takes to achieve this. They have shown a false desire for peace in 1993 and then in 2018. But their actions don't match, because there is no true intention for peace.

People genuinely seeking peace don't behave in such a manner. They don't attack Israeli civilians and start war out of nowhere. 

But, they show interest in negotiation, in diplomatic actions, in educating their children for peace with Israel rather than hatred and not investing in weapons and terror organizations to kill Israelies.

I don't subscribe to the "they do that because they are oppressed" theory. Many oppressed groups don't exhibit similar behavior, suggesting a toxic ideological factor at play in their actions that isn't Israel's fault. Given this, there's no guarantee that this behavior will cease if they acquire more territory.

 

Edited January 9 by Lila9

[PurpleTree]

48 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

 

Better die fighting.

Really? I mean for example Albert Einstein and Freddy Mercury fled and lived good inportant lives afterwards

[kenway]

@Lila9

1 Israeli = 1 Palestinian

Correct?

[zazen]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

I don't subscribe to the "they do that because they are oppressed" theory. Many oppressed groups don't exhibit similar behavior, suggesting a toxic ideological factor at play in their actions that isn't Israel's fault. Given this, there's no guarantee that this behavior will cease if they acquire more territory.

Resistance is baked into occupation - it can be expected until that occupation has completely subjugated the original population, genocides or cleanses them or has finally integrated them into a democratic state like America and Australia for example.

How this occupation is resisted will differ - India mostly had peaceful resistance against British occupation while the Algerian, Kenyan, Vietnamese or South African resistance included violence. Are Nelson Mandela from South Africa or Matt turner from the slave revolt terrorists?

The level of resistance depends on the level of oppression. The feminist suffragettes in England for example protested, vandalised property and committed arson in order to obtain the right to vote. Were they oppressed to the level Palestinians are?

When the avenues to peaceful protest have been blocked oppressed people are left with no other option. The BDS movement which helped end South African apartheid is out lawed legislatively - theres no talks of a two state and if there is one its only dangled like a carrot to keep them pacified and waiting while their land gets rapidly taken away in West Bank - any discussions of a state only offer 'less than a state' in the words of Rabin with limited right of return, security presence etc which fails meeting the international standard of a sovereign state.

Israel thought it can just go on as is and the Palestinian issue is just a thorn on its side that needs removing whenever it pricks them - that the world will forget about them and it could go on to normalise with the Arab nations - this is why they had a uprising and put their cause back on the world stage including Israel's atrocities which they self incriminate themselves with boastfully - it was a cry for the world not to forget them, a violent cry.

Edited January 9 by zazen

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

How can we trust people who commit such brutal acts towards innocent Israelis just because they happen to be Israelis?

They killed a woman, Shani Louk, among many Israelis who were ideologically pro-peace. They did that so brutally, how can such people be trusted with a state?

https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/hypel11uu6

Would you trust terrorists who are capable of this? Would you allow them more power, given they are passionate about killing you and are living near you, your children, family, and friends?

The Slaughter 710 on Telegram:

https://t.me/the_slaughter710

So far, they haven't shown a geniune desire for peace, instead, each year, they demonstrate a commitment to replacing Israel with Palestine and doing whatever it takes to achieve this. They have shown a false desire for peace in 1993 and then in 2018. But their actions don't match, because there is no true intention for peace.

People genuinely seeking peace don't behave in such a manner. They don't attack Israeli civilians and start war out of nowhere. 

But, they show interest in negotiation, in diplomatic actions, in educating their children for peace with Israel rather than hatred and not investing in weapons and terror organizations to kill Israelies.

I don't subscribe to the "they do that because they are oppressed" theory. Many oppressed groups don't exhibit similar behavior, suggesting a toxic ideological factor at play in their actions that isn't Israel's fault. Given this, there's no guarantee that this behavior will cease if they acquire more territory.

That war comes from oppression and desire for ethnic cleansing.

Israel treats them like shit, so they should not cry about being attacked.

Here is a solution for you: Go back to 1947 borders and give them 50% of the land. Lets see if Israel wants to do that. Doing that would decrease terrorism by a ton. Also do war crime trials for anyone that has broken international law. 

Give Palestinians equal rights rather than random soldiers raiding their houses at 3am without any warrant or shooting kids via snipers.

Do all of these and I assure you terrorism will be greatly reduced.

But ofc they wont do that because fundamentally Isarel are also selfish devils.

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

That war comes from oppression and desire for ethnic cleansing.

This isn't true.

You just can't enter Israel's shoes.

95% of the Israelis are just want to live in their borders and thats all, as long as they aren't provoked severely.

Edited January 9 by Nivsch

[zazen]

@Nivsch

People can see Israel's side in this - they just don't agree to the entitlement that some of its population have. When people mention apartheid, occupation or ethnic cleansing they're referring to West Bank or Gaza more so than Israel proper. Like that video you shared of that girl asking where is apartheid - its like showing Beverly Hills mansions and saying where is the income inequality? But completely missing out the ghettos of LA.

You have acknowledged the settlers are a problem also so you're aware of it, maybe just not the scale or how big of a problem it is. The settler expansion in West Bank gets in the way of a two state solution. But if there isn't going to be a two state solution because the settlers aren't going to move then what is Israels choice? To go on as its going on and hope the world just forgets about Palestinians? It can't go on the way it is. 

Edited January 9 by zazen

[Nivsch]

@zazen The peace offers obviously meant that a deal = end of settlements expansion, but the palestinians still refused.

[Karmadhi]

36 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

This isn't true.

You just can't enter Israel's shoes.

The issue is decades of occupacion and atrocities.

If you look at the situation in 2023, you can say that a lot of the measures are necessary, fair.

However, the reason they are necessary is because of deep resentment that comes from people that have been oppressed all their lives.

It is an endless cycle of violence and hatred. I have never seen in the world such hatred between two groups of people.

Someone needs to step up, swallow their pride/ego and put an end to the hate, even if it costs them a bit.

Same way Mandela did.

Since Israel is a lot richer, more developed and has more educated people it has the moral obligation in my opinion to do so.

With great power and knowledge comes great responsability.

The current Israeli government is the worst government possible to do so.

Leo also said that Israel has been doing lowkey ethnic cleansing for 50 years now. Unless you recognize this, put a stop on it instead of funding further illegal settlements and calling for Gaza to be ethnically cleansed, there will be no more change and Palestinians will still try to do terrorist attacks on you.

Edited January 9 by Karmadhi