Quote (Prox1m1ty @ 29 Oct 2023 16:43)
Israel is not trying to deliver meaningful peace via its military; Afaik, having listened to Netanyahu's public address the objectives are to destroy Hamas as a credible threat and to try and rescue hostages.
Nobody is arguing for the killing of civilians. But Israel has a right to defend itself, and that means removing Hamas' infrastructure and capacity to strike within Israel.
They are not trying to destroy the idea of Hamas, because they will never accomplish that. They are not trying to destroy the cause for Palestinian statehood.
There is a credible threat in Gaza. A terrorist group that is responsible for atrocities against Israelis.
I don't believe its constructive to get mired into a "who was here first" type of argument. Both peoples are there now, and they ought to be able to coexist.
However talking about an occupation is quite rich considering Israel was invaded by its neighbouring countries and the occupation is a result of that aggression.
Should progress be made on ending occupation, yes. Equally should Arab countries accept the existence and right to exist of Israel, yes.
Tldr; What credible alternative are you suggesting Israel take? What do you think Israel should do now? If any part of your answer involves negotiating with Hamas, you probably should save time in replying. Because that is an illogical answer.
what i've been saying for quite a while now:
Quote (fender @ 29 Oct 2023 14:13)
people are pointing out that indiscriminately bombing churches, residential areas, evacuation routes, and schools at will, that cutting water, power, and aid to millions of people (most of which women and children) is NOT "targeting" hamas, but rather slaughtering civilians for revenge.
"targeting" hamas would involve using intelligence, special ops, and precision strikes against confirmed targets, and not the flattening of half of gaza, while killing thousands of innocent people and creating a massive humanitarian crisis.
one more point: you say you don't want to make a "who was there first" argument - only to follow that up suggesting the trouble started with a completely unprovoked war against israel by arabs. it's quite convenient that your version of history completely ignores the whole ethnic cleansing, the systematic destruction of hundreds of palestinian villages, and the murdering that happened to create the "innocent victim" in the first place.
but even if i just gave you that, even if we just pretended like a completely blameless and innocent israeli state was attacked out of the blue, and then understandably and justifiably occupied territories - that occupation has to be resolved at some point.
Quote
The legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which has continued since 1967 and is the longest military occupation in modern history, is a subject that has received much less attention than violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) that have occurred during the occupation. Multiple United Nations General Assembly resolutions have described the continuing occupation as illegal. The general thrust of international law scholarship addressing this question has concluded that, regardless of whether it was initially legal, the occupation has become illegal over time. Reasons cited for its illegality include use of force for impermissible purposes such as annexation, violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination, that the occupation itself is an illegal regime "of alien subjugation, domination and exploitation", or some combination of these factors.
to be clear, i generally agree that both peoples lived there for long enough to support the notion that they should find a sustainable way to co-exist. i don't agree with those that suggest that because israel was created through ethnic cleansing, all the jewish people living there today have no right to stay there. i don't think the current generations should be collectively punished for the sins of previous generations - but that goes both ways.