Hamas attacks southern Israel

[Kyriakos]

So if Hamas (like Hamas in the parallel universe, which is used so often as a pretext) was magically able to invade Israel with tanks/planes/missiles and kill tens of thousands, it would be also justified by you because Netanyahu openly declared he is against a two-state solution?
Let's say it had around 1000 of its "people" killed by Israel, and currently had killed roughly 35.000 Israelis and leveled the homes of 1 million etc.

[mishkin]

I find it hilarious that Israel has been surrounded by enemies for its entire existence.

I would completely agree with you that the creation of the state of Israel was hilariously foolish, if it weren't that to "make room" for themselves they had to violently expel a large part of the native population (Muslim Arabs). Which explains why they are surrounded by enemies. But yes, of course, if it weren't for all the destruction they have caused to their neighbors and themselves it would be hilarious.

Edit: I am remembering now a book by Albert Cohen (one of the solal trilogy, probably mangeclous) where he makes fun of the Israeli settlers (pre-creation of the state of Israel) who buy land and go to Palestine to plant a garden and have stones thrown at them and shot with muskets by Arabs riding camels. Hilarious passage.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I would encourage you to Google how regions of the Levant became majority Muslim Arab, and the populations they replaced. It’s definitely ironic, just not how you might have hoped. As for the notion that Arab Muslim hatred of Jews began in 1948, that’s unironically hilarious.

[mishkin]

I would encourage you to Google how regions of the Levant became majority Muslim Arab, and the populations they replaced. It’s definitely ironic, just not how you might have hoped.

Could you be more specific in that justification of the Nakba?

As for the notion that Arab Muslim hatred of Jews began in 1948, that’s unironically hilarious.

The book I mentioned is before 1948. Jewish settlers have probably been hated or despised in Palestine since they started arriving, more than 100 years ago.

[flo463]

how many hamas fighters?

Hamas-Run Gaza Health Ministry Admits to Flaws in Casualty Data (fdd.org)


it is very likely that we will never know the real number of civilian casualties

[flo463]

strange that you forget an essential fact, the Arabs rejecting the two-state solution voted at the UN and attacking Israel on the very day of its independence because they refused a Jewish state. who knows what would have happened if the Muslims had accepted, one thing is certain the region would be calmer.


Muslims including no-involved states as Marocco, Algeria, Tunisia who after their defeat in 1948 committed ethnic cleansing against their own Jewish populations.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Could you be more specific in that justification of the Nakba?

I wasn’t aware historical facts are subject to moral justification, so I don’t know what you mean. Can you be more specific about how a question regarding a backfired attempt to expel Jews from the region relates to your earlier claims?

The book I mentioned is before 1948. Jewish settlers have probably been hated or despised in Palestine since they started arriving, more than 100 years ago.

I agree, the emergence of Jewish kingdoms in ~900 BC happened more than 100 years ago. The Jewish “settler” revolt against the Babylonians was also more than 100 years ago. So was the Jewish “colonizer” revolt against the Greeks. So were the Jewish “occupier” rebellions against the Romans. So was the Umayyad conquest of the region in the 600s AD. So was the rule of the Abbasids, the Fatimids, the Seljuks, the Crusaders, and the Ottomans. So was the emergence of “native” Arab nationalism in the 19th century. We can therefore deduce that hatred of the Jews, of their nationalist resistance against foreign conquerers for thousands of years and of the diaspora that process created is indeed quite old.

It doesn’t substantiate claims that the 6th-7th and not even the most recent group to conquer the area by force are “native,” while the people who have lived there the longest as part of some of the oldest original kingdoms turned client states for millennia are the “settlers.” As outsiders, picking sides is inherently self-serving, so we should acknowledge that the only real basis for backing Israel or Palestine has little to do with the moral claims of either party, or casualty ratios, or arbitrary dates, but is instead a function of our own domestic politics.

[Ludicus]

I'm glad you agree it is at least part of it.(…)Yes but not by adopting a perverse moral arithmetic where justice is achieved by balancing the books in terms of casualties and atrocities.

1) I’m afraid you didn’t understand what I said: "It is not enough for the Western world to say that it was Hamas who initiated this war on October 7" .What I think and say is different, and I've said this many times: October 7 is just the latest episode in a long war that began 75 years ago.

2) Who says justice is achieved by "balancing the books in terms of casualties and atrocities?". Asking "is not enough for you?" is a rethorical question. What Israel is doing is unlike anything that has happened before, under any circumstances. Truly perverse is Israel using mass starvation as a weapon of war, indiscriminate bombings, systematic destruction of health services in Gaza, systematic destruction of Palestinian agriculture, systematic destruction of homes, (a crime called domicide), turning Gaza uninhabitable, and as we know, forced displacement violates international humanitarian law, notably Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (Five war crimes, if I’m not wrong)
Israel has long wanted Palestinians out of Gaza, and you know that.
-----
US Republicans are ecstatic. They think they've hit the jackpot,

Ben-Gvir Tweets Hamas 'Loves' Biden

Florida Republican says House has ‘no choice’ but to impeach Biden over Israel comments

Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., is preparing impeachment articles against President Biden over his threat to halt U.S. offensive aid to Israel, the first-term lawmaker told Fox News Digital on Thursday.

In 2015, Nethanyhau's speech to Congress (which Obama refused to attend) was an insult to the Democrats.
History will repeat itself, because he has already been invited back by the Republicans. Bibi, when necessary, travels to the US to bring order to the unruly hordes.

The question is, will Nancy Pelosi cry again? At the time, Pelosi said in a statement that "as one who values the U.S.-Israel relationship and loves Israel, "she was "near tears" throughout the speech because of Netanyahu's rhetoric”. Dems: Bibi speech was an 'insult' to America, Obama

[Muizer]

1) I’m afraid you didn’t understand what I said: "It is not enough for the Western world to say that it was Hamas who initiated this war on October 7" .What I think and say is different, and I've said this many times: October 7 is just the latest episode in a long war that began 75 years ago.

You mean you did not say what you meant to say. Don't put that on me. Be more careful with your words.

Who says justice is achieved by "balancing the books in terms of casualties and atrocities?".

This to me seems to be part of Kyriakos' considerations.

Asking "is not enough for you?" is a rethorical question. What Israel is doing is unlike anything that has happened before, under any circumstances. Truly perverse is Israel using mass starvation as a weapon of war, indiscriminate bombings, systematic destruction of health services in Gaza, systematic destruction of Palestinian agriculture, systematic destruction of homes, (a crime called domicide), turning Gaza uninhabitable, and as we know, forced displacement violates international humanitarian law, notably Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. (Five war crimes, if I’m not wrong)
Israel has long wanted Palestinians out of Gaza, and you know that.

It could indeed not be clearer that what you 'see' is highly coloured by the intentions you ascribe to Israel. That or you're very naive about the brutality of war in front line urban areas. I'm not saying everything can be ascribed to it, but most of it ..... I'm afraid so.

Personally I defer judgement until we actually get to know what both sides are prepared to concede at the negotiation table. Israel should withdraw from Gaza AND Hamas should relinquish power there. As far as I'm concerned, whichever side continues fighting when the other has agreed to it is ultimately in the wrong.

[mishkin]

strange that you forget an essential fact, the Arabs rejecting the two-state solution voted at the UN and attacking Israel on the very day of its independence because they refused a Jewish state. who knows what would have happened if the Muslims had accepted, one thing is certain the region would be calmer..

Maybe in the history subforum we can calmly talk about the civil war before '48 and the execution of the Plan Dialet.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Plan Dalet (Hebrew: תוכנית ד', Tokhnit dalet "Plan D") was a Zionist military plan executed in the civil war phase of the 1948 Palestine war for the conquest of territory in Mandatory Palestine in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish state.[1] The plan was requested by the Jewish Agency leader and later first prime minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion, and developed by the Haganah and finalized on March 10, 1948. Historians describe Plan Dalet, in which Zionist forces shifted to an offensive strategy, as the beginning of a new phase in the 1948 Palestine war.[2][3]

The plan was a set of guidelines to take control of Mandatory Palestine, declare a Jewish state, and defend its borders and people, including the Jewish population outside of the borders, "before, and in anticipation of" the invasion by regular Arab armies.[4][5][qt 1][6][7][8] Plan Dalet specifically included gaining control of areas wherever Yishuv populations existed, including those outside the borders of the Jewish state.[9]

This strategy is subject to controversy, with some historians characterizing it as defensive, while others assert that it was an integral part of a planned strategy for the expulsion, sometimes called an ethnic cleansing, of the area's native inhabitants.[10]

You mean you did not say what you meant to say. Don't put that on me. Be more careful with your words.

He was asking very clearly how many more Palestinian civilians have to die before it is recognized that this is an atrocity. I would repeat that question to those who are still not sure that 15,000 dead children is not normal at all in an anti-terrorist and release of hostages operation.

[Jozam]

strange that you forget an essential fact, the Arabs rejecting the two-state solution voted at the UN and attacking Israel on the very day of its independence because they refused a Jewish state. who knows what would have happened if the Muslims had accepted, one thing is certain the region would be calmer.

I don't know if going to war was the best response to Zionism, but put yourself in the local population's shoes: If millions of Pakistani Baluch Muslims illegally migrated to your country to create their own independent emirate within its territory, and the U.N. then proposed handing most of your country over to those Pakistani Baluch Muslims, would you accept that "two-state solution" or would you call on your country's armed forces to put a stop to it?

The [U.N. partition] plan’s detractors considered the proposed plan to be pro-Zionist, with 56%[9] of the land allocated to the Jewish state although the Palestinian Arab population numbered twice the Jewish population.[10] The plan was celebrated by most Jews in Palestine[11] and reluctantly[12] accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine with misgivings.[13][8] Zionist leaders, in particular David Ben-Gurion, viewed the acceptance of the plan as a tactical step and a stepping stone to future territorial expansion over all of Palestine.[14][15][16][17][18][19] The Arab Higher Committee, the Arab League and other Arab leaders and governments rejected it, as in addition to the Arabs forming a two-thirds majority, they owned a majority of the lands.[20][21] They also indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[22] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[8][23] They announced their intention to take all necessary measures to prevent the implementation of the resolution.[24][25][26][27] Subsequently, a civil war broke out in Palestine,[28] and the plan was not implemented.[29]