Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[jonatha]

Hamas leadership isn't in Gaza, they can't be destroyed

I think it would have been a far more effective response to have concentrated on finding them and destroying them.

So they should have flung an H-tipped missile at Doha?

Of course

And delivered it on the same motorcycle they used when they killed Darioush Rezaeinejad...

 

[Derec]

There are more than two options.

1) Co-exist with the Gazans in a mutually beneficial partnership

This would be ideal. But for that, Gazans would have to want to live in peace next to Israel. Instead, they want to destroy Israel.

2) Slay all that breathe in Gaza and move Zionist settlers into the newly available real estate

But this, in reverse, is pretty much the Hamas/Islamic Jihad plan for the Endlösung.
Yahya Sinwar spelled it out during the "peaceful" Great March of Return.

3) Disengage entirely. Let the Gazans manage their own affairs and resources.

That was tried in 2005. The result was that Hamas took over and started shooting rockets into Israel, started digging tunnels into Israel etc. Culminating in the atrocities of 10/7. That attack was the result of letting "the Gazans manage their own affairs".

The choice isn't between Kill or Die.

It is when the other side is a bunch of fanatics who are trying to kill you.

Palestinian culture must change for peace to be a viable possibility.

'Let's find a way to work together' and MYOB are perfectly valid options, too.

Only when the other side finally stops trying to kill you.

 

[Derec]

Zionist dogma insists that the only place Jews can be treated with respect and their security valued is in a Jewish State. It isn't true. Not only is it possible for Jews to be well respected, well treated, and well protected in a State they share with Muslims and Christians, it already happened, for centuries.

So what you want is for Israel to be abolished and for any Jews to take their chances living under a Muslim-dominated government?
I do not see that going well at all.

 

[Derec]

If you go back to May, that was when there was an exchange of fire between Israel and Gaza. The Israelis claimed to have assassinated a couple of people they claimed were militants,

"They claimed were militants"? You are seriously doubting that?
Also, militant is too neutral itself. The Islamic Jihad functionaries who were sent to their 72 virgins were terrorists. Let's call spade a spade and dispense with euphemisms like "militants" even though you do not want to concede even that much.
Also, the assassination was the result of Islamic Jihad shooting >100 missiles into Israel. You failed to mention that. I wonder why.

along with more than a dozen civilians. Apparently there were reasons the Israelis decided to commit multiple murders in a place outside Israel's borders. Obviously that sort of thing, and the deaths of ordinary people going about their everyday lives, fuels the fighting.

Killing terrorists is not "murder". It is not when US does it; it is not when Israel does it either.

The question of where to begin a discussion of the conflict is going to heavily influence why we think it is happening, which will in turn affect how we think it might be resolved.

We can go far back indeed. That does not change the culpability of Hamas and the wider Gazan society in the 10/7 massacre. It cannot be justified with things like Israel taking out Islamic Jihad commanders in May in response to rocket fire by that terrorist group.

Then the path to peace leads through Israel having defensible borders and NOT continuing to put its people in harm's way in those illegal settlements.

If you look at the map, the 1967 borders are not very defensible. Israel proper is very narrow between Caesarea and Tel Aviv. Disengaging from Judea and Samaria would risk it being taken over by Hamas and it becoming Gaza-like, only much bigger and closer to major Israeli population centers.

If the goal is security, then ffs Israel needs to keep its civilians inside the boundaries the Palestinians and Israelis agreed were the borders of the State of Israel, and get onboard with a Two State solution.

The Two State Solution is a worthy goal. But Palestinians are nowhere near ready to have a state. Gaza has proven that conclusively. The worst thing possible is to push for a premature Palestinian state in the aftermath of this war. Not only are conditions not ripe for one, a creation of a state would be seen facto a reward for the 10/7 massacre. Hamas is enjoying more than enough popularity as is.

If you want peace, don't let the extremists and the assholes control the agenda.

But that's exactly who controls the agenda on the Palestinian side.

 

[steve_bank]

The tide appears to be turning against Israel.

They have been relatively small, we have had a few anti Israel pro Palestinian demonstrations in Seattle. One marched past my building.

Biden has doe 1 180 going from supporting Israel right or wrong to pushing a cease fire resolution in the UN.

If Biden wants to stop the carnage all he has to do is stop military aid.

 

[Derec]

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

Why should Israel take in enemy population?

A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?

Why not Egypt? According to this Hamas leader, half of Gazans are Egyptian. They are certainly not Israelis.

Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them?

Egypt does not want them either, and yet Israel is being called "racist".
Also, why is it ok to have many Arab states, but not ok to have even one Jewish one? Why do you think Israel schuld have to allow to become overwhelmed demographically by Arabs? To become a minority in their own country?

Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.

They could find safety in Egypt as well. Or in Jordan and Saudi Arabia for that matter.

Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.

I proposed something similar - evacuate children under 14 and one adult caretaker per family. But it was Sinai that I proposed, not Ashkelon. Why are you demanding Israel must be the one to take them in? Especially given the Palestinian ideology of so-called "return", which sees demographics as a weapon to destroy Israel from within, I do not see why Israel should do so.

 

[Derec]

The tide appears to be turning against Israel.
They have been relatively small, we have had a few anti Israel pro Palestinian demonstrations in Seattle. One marched past my building.

Far left has always been anti-Israel. Existence of useful idiots for Hamas and the theocracy in Tehran is not really evidence of "the tide turning".

Biden has doe 1 180 going from supporting Israel right or wrong to pushing a cease fire resolution in the UN.

Not really 180°. But he has gone soft. He started out strong in support for Israel, but has wavered since, no doubt to try to appease the crazies within his own party - Palestinians and Muslims like Rashida Tlaib and useful idiots around her.

If Biden wants to stop the carnage all he has to do is stop military aid.

That would not stop the carnage. Carnage like we saw on 10/7.
Stopping military aid to Israel would be one of the stupidest things Biden could do. It would certainly cause me not to vote for him again.

 

[Arctish]

There are more than two options.

1) Co-exist with the Gazans in a mutually beneficial partnership
This would be ideal. But for that, Gazans would have to want to live in peace next to Israel. Instead, they want to destroy Israel.

Hamas wants to destroy the "Zionist entity". The Palestinian Authority wants to have a Palestinian State, which may or may not be closely confederated with Israel but would definitely be dedicated to the welfare of the Palestinian people.

IMO, ordinary Palestinians want to mind their own business as they go about living peaceful, boring, ordinary lives.

2) Slay all that breathe in Gaza and move Zionist settlers into the newly available real estate

It's the free real estate? You have advocated for genocide in Gaza in previous discussions. I see you haven't changed your mind.

But this, in reverse, is pretty much the Hamas/Islamic Jihad plan for the Endlösung.
Yahya Sinwar spelled it out during the "peaceful" Great March of Return.

3) Disengage entirely. Let the Gazans manage their own affairs and resources.

That was tried in 2005. The result was that Hamas took over and started shooting rockets into Israel, started digging tunnels into Israel etc. Culminating in the atrocities of 10/7. That attack was the result of letting "the Gazans manage their own affairs".

Looks like you and Sinwar have a lot in common.

No, disengagement wasn't tried.

Israel sent its ships to patrol Gazan waters and keep Gazan fishermen close to shore. It intercepted ships carrying aid to Gaza on the high seas. It blocked the development of Gazan natural gas deposits by Gazans and instead diverted the supply to Israel, I could go on giving instance after instance of Israel not letting Gazans manage their own affairs, but you already know Israel has a stranglehold on Gaza and Netanyahu and his faction have no intention of letting go.

The choice isn't between Kill or Die.

It is when the other side is a bunch of fanatics who are trying to kill you.

Palestinian culture must change for peace to be a viable possibility.

'Let's find a way to work together' and MYOB are perfectly valid options, too.

Only when the other side finally stops trying to kill you.

That's what peace is for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Legitimate combat" is a moral figment of your imagination used to dehumanize one side and defend another side. Claiming that bombing noncombatants is "legitimate combat" makes the term meaningless.Geneva conventions

You really think that those who spent some much time and effort on drafting, implementing and maintaining these conventions were not interesting in legitimate combat? They were engaging in moral figmentation?

I think they spent much time and effort in making rules that 1) would keep their enemies hopefully in check, and 2) minimize blowback on themselves when they acted.

"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder or the maker of the rules.

Only the supporters of terrorism have a hard time distinguishing terrorism from valid targets.

 

[Arctish]

If you go back to May, that was when there was an exchange of fire between Israel and Gaza. The Israelis claimed to have assassinated a couple of people they claimed were militants,

"They claimed were militants"? You are seriously doubting that?

Did you see any evidence that supported the claim? I suppose Israel had reasons to kill those men but I have no idea if they were militants, couriers, smugglers, money launderers, or had some other business in Gaza that the Israelis did not what them to successfully conclude.

Also, militant is too neutral itself. The Islamic Jihad functionaries who were sent to their 72 virgins were terrorists. Let's call spade a spade and dispense with euphemisms like "militants" even though you do not want to concede even that much.
Also, the assassination was the result of Islamic Jihad shooting >100 missiles into Israel. You failed to mention that. I wonder why.

Are you talking about the exchange of fire in May? I did note that responses to responses to historical responses are part of the pattern of violence in Israel and Palestine. I did not exclude any of those acts of violence from consideration.

along with more than a dozen civilians. Apparently there were reasons the Israelis decided to commit multiple murders in a place outside Israel's borders. Obviously that sort of thing, and the deaths of ordinary people going about their everyday lives, fuels the fighting.

Killing terrorists is not "murder". It is not when US does it; it is not when Israel does it either.

The question of where to begin a discussion of the conflict is going to heavily influence why we think it is happening, which will in turn affect how we think it might be resolved.

We can go far back indeed. That does not change the culpability of Hamas and the wider Gazan society in the 10/7 massacre. It cannot be justified with things like Israel taking out Islamic Jihad commanders in May in response to rocket fire by that terrorist group.

Then the path to peace leads through Israel having defensible borders and NOT continuing to put its people in harm's way in those illegal settlements.

If you look at the map, the 1967 borders are not very defensible. Israel proper is very narrow between Caesarea and Tel Aviv. Disengaging from Judea and Samaria would risk it being taken over by Hamas and it becoming Gaza-like, only much bigger and closer to major Israeli population centers.

If the goal is security, then ffs Israel needs to keep its civilians inside the boundaries the Palestinians and Israelis agreed were the borders of the State of Israel, and get onboard with a Two State solution.

The Two State Solution is a worthy goal. But Palestinians are nowhere near ready to have a state. Gaza has proven that conclusively.

What arrogance. The Palestinian Authority has just as much ability to run a State as the Jewish Agency for Palestine had in May of 1948, if not more. And a lower body count with less ethnic cleansing to it's (dis)credit.

The worst thing possible is to push for a premature Palestinian state in the aftermath of this war. Not only are conditions not ripe for one, a creation of a state would be seen facto a reward for the 10/7 massacre. Hamas is enjoying more than enough popularity as is.

If you want peace, don't let the extremists and the assholes control the agenda.

But that's exactly who controls the agenda on the Palestinian side.

In Gaza, yes. In the West Bank, not at the moment, although that could change if Abbas and Fatah can't improve lives for the people living there. Assholes and extremists are in charge on the Israeli side but it appears Netanyahu is losing support so there's hope for better statesmen and genuine peacemakers in the future.

 

[Arctish]

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

Why should Israel take in enemy population?

Children are not Israel's enemies.

I have already said why Israel should relocate the imperiled children to Ashkelon. A great many of them are from families that were forced out of Ashkelon by Zionists when Israel was founded. It makes more sense, and is far more just and fair, for their families to be repatriated rather than being forced into another country at gunpoint.

I understand that you support the ethnic cleansing of any part of Palestine that Zionists desire, and are onboard with genocide if that's the only way to accomplish that goal. I don't expect you to have any other suggestions. But I do expect even you to hesitate to call babies the enemies of Israel.

A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?

Why not Egypt? According to this Hamas leader, half of Gazans are Egyptian. They are certainly not Israelis.

Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them?

Egypt does not want them either, and yet Israel is being called "racist".
Also, why is it ok to have many Arab states, but not ok to have even one Jewish one? Why do you think Israel schuld have to allow to become overwhelmed demographically by Arabs? To become a minority in their own country?

Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.

They could find safety in Egypt as well. Or in Jordan and Saudi Arabia for that matter.

Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.

I proposed something similar - evacuate children under 14 and one adult caretaker per family. But it was Sinai that I proposed, not Ashkelon. Why are you demanding Israel must be the one to take them in? Especially given the Palestinian ideology of so-called "return", which sees demographics as a weapon to destroy Israel from within, I do not see why Israel should do so.

Of course you don't.

In the view you constantly espouse, Israel is a religious ethno-state where only the 'right sort' of person should be allowed to live. You support ethnic cleansing and vociferously oppose undoing the effects of Plan Dalet or stopping the on-going seizing of Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories.

Of course you don't want non-Jews or their families returning to their former communities in the Jewish State.

 

[Derec]

Hamas wants to destroy the "Zionist entity".

You mean Israel. Why do you use the language of the islamofascists?

The Palestinian Authority wants to have a Palestinian State, which may or may not be closely confederated with Israel but would definitely be dedicated to the welfare of the Palestinian people.

Nominally at least.

IMO, ordinary Palestinians want to mind their own business as they go about living peaceful, boring, ordinary engage ilives.

Some of them do. But many engage in terrorist activities, and many more support those who do.

Looks like you and Sinwar have a lot in common.

Bullshit!

No, disengagement wasn't tried.

Yes, it was.

Israel sent its ships to patrol Gazan waters and keep Gazan fishermen close to shore.

Because of weapons smuggling, and in response to Gaza attacking Israel.

It intercepted ships carrying aid to Gaza on the high seas.

Are you talking about the so-called "Freedom Flotilla"? That was when there already was the Gaza blockade instituted because Hamas took over and started attacking Israel.

It blocked the development of Gazan natural gas deposits by Gazans and instead diverted the supply to Israel, I could go on giving instance after instance of Israel not letting Gazans manage their own affairs, but you already know Israel has a stranglehold on Gaza and Netanyahu and his faction have no intention of letting go.

Had Gazans decided in 2005 to live in peace there would be no need for any of this. Instead, they chose war. You think Israel should give in no matter how Gazans behave.

That's what peace is for.

Far more easier said than done. In any case, there is no peace possible as long as Hamas is in charge and it (and terrorist groups like it) enjoy strong support among Palestinians.

 

[Arctish]

Hamas wants to destroy the "Zionist entity".

You mean Israel. Why do you use the language of the islamofascists?

I use the term because it's the term Hamas used in their Charter, and I was talking about Hamas. They say that Jews are not their enemy but the "Zionist entity" is. I'm not entirely sure what the definition is in the original text. It's clear from their actions that they are against Israel remaining a Jewish State for Jews only but it's not clear they would oppose Israel becoming a secular, multicultural State.

I think some of the more zealous Hamas members would stick with the position that Israel must be disbanded and destroyed, but I believe that the more pragmatic members would see Israel becoming secular and allowing Muslim and Christian Palestinians to reclaim their former homes, farms, businesses, etc., or be fairly compensated for their loss, as a win.

The Palestinian Authority wants to have a Palestinian State, which may or may not be closely confederated with Israel but would definitely be dedicated to the welfare of the Palestinian people.

Nominally at least.

IMO, ordinary Palestinians want to mind their own business as they go about living peaceful, boring, ordinary engage ilives.

Some of them do. But many engage in terrorist activities, and many more support those who do.

Looks like you and Sinwar have a lot in common.

Bullshit!

No, disengagement wasn't tried.

Yes, it was.

Israel sent its ships to patrol Gazan waters and keep Gazan fishermen close to shore.

Because of weapons smuggling, and in response to Gaza attacking Israel.

It intercepted ships carrying aid to Gaza on the high seas.

Are you talking about the so-called "Freedom Flotilla"? That was when there already was the Gaza blockade instituted because Hamas took over and started attacking Israel.

It blocked the development of Gazan natural gas deposits by Gazans and instead diverted the supply to Israel, I could go on giving instance after instance of Israel not letting Gazans manage their own affairs, but you already know Israel has a stranglehold on Gaza and Netanyahu and his faction have no intention of letting go.

Had Gazans decided in 2005 to live in peace there would be no need for any of this. Instead, they chose war. You think Israel should give in no matter how Gazans behave.

You are making my point: Israel did not disengage from Gaza, it continued to interfere with Gazan affairs.

That's what peace is for.

Far more easier said than done. In any case, there is no peace possible as long as Hamas is in charge and it (and terrorist groups like it) enjoy strong support among Palestinians.

Peace with the Palestinian Authority is not only possible, it's on offer right now. And if peace between Israel and the PA results in more prosperity and better prospects for Palestinians in the West Bank, Hamas would lose both support and credibility.

If what you're calling peace is the total subjugation or eradication of your 'enemies', you're bullshitting someone, possibly yourself. That's not peace, that's all out war. And if your enemies are literally babies, wtf is wrong with you?

 

[Derec]

They were. It was an unavoidable necessity.
When Hitler committed suicide the leadership passed to his chosen heir, Adm. Karl Donitz, a dedicated Nazi and Hitler admirer. Donitz and his cabinet negotiated the terms of surrender aka the peace agreement, and his Chief of Staff signed it on behalf of the government of Germany.

So Nazis signed the surrender. Hamas can do too. But Nazis had no role in negotiating future of Germany. Hamas should have no role in negotiating the future of Gaza (or any other Palestinian territory).

 

[Derec]

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

I do not see why the 1967 should be regarded as permanent borders. It was merely the state when the fighting stopped in 1949. It has no other significance. They can be basis for negotiation, but should not be considered sacrosanct.

Hamas offered to do it years ago.

No they did not. That is a piece of propaganda.
The new charter merely sees the 1967 borders (and with injecting millions of descendens of 1948 refugees into Israel) as a stepping stone in its end goal of destroying Israel.

It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again.

Again? They never have.
Hamas: New Charter, Same Old Anti-Semitism

With regard to the ’67 lines, the new charter states that the “establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the displaced in their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”
But in the same paragraph where Hamas speaks of the ‘1967 lines, it also says: “Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine should be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” Which is it?

Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference.

That is not going to be possible in the near or even medium term.

chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.

Had Gaza not reacted with war and terror to the 2005 disengagement, it could have gained more independence as time went on, instead of less. Every restriction has been a response to some nefarious Palestinian act. Even things like cancer patients travelling through the Erez Crossing had to be restricted because Hamas just can't help itself from being evil.
Gazan sisters accused of smuggling explosives as cancer medicine

If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.

Gaza has to do its part. That means that after Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers, Gaza should not have responded by shooting hundreds of rockets into Israel.

 

[Derec]

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. are where violent bigots gather to plan and commit acts designed to force their opponents to comply with their desires. Just like Zionist terrorists who devised and implemented Plan Dalet.

Those two are hardly comparable. And not only because the former is happening right now and the latter is almost ~75 years in the past.

I think Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza because it is killing thousands of unarmed civilians.

Many German civilians died in the last year of WWII as well. That does not mean it was wrong to bomb Germany.

Their deaths won't make Israel any safer, it will rightfully turn more and more people against Israel.

That remains to be seen. Hamas gained in popularity after 10/7 because of the murderous success of that operation, not because of Israel's response. If Hamas is allowed to survive it will claim victory and become all the more popular for it.

I think Israel needs to not only stop building settlements, it needs to relocate the settlers and offer the empty housing to the Palestinians it made refugees when Zionists and the IDF destroyed their homes.

Israel has historic connection to Judea and Samaria. More so than Arabs (many of them recent immigrants from places like Egypt or Yemen) who had to only live there for two years between 1946 and 1948 for them and their descendants to count as "Palestinian refugees" in perpetuity.

Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”

Not even UNRWA is buying the claim that Palestinians are the indigenous population of the Land of Israel.

I think Israel should never stop wanting the hostages back, and not expect the Palestinians to stop wanting their people back either.

Yet another of your false equivalences.
Israeli hostages are innocent. Those whom you euphemistically describe as "their people" as terrorists serving time in Israeli prisons. People like Abdullah Barghouti who is serving 67 life terms for being involved in a large number of Hamas terrorist attacks.

I think Israel should release everyone it is holding in administrative detention, i.e. prisoners who have never been charged with any crime, much less convicted, and should allow an impartial international panel to review the evidence and court proceedings of any non-Israeli who was convicted of a crime.

Administrative detention is a tool used to detain terror suspects. There is no trial, but a judge still has to sign off on it.
It is in principle not much different than holding Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo, except that a judge has to renew the detention order every six months.
Why should Israel submit to a supposedly "impartial" international panel to review sentences of terrorist masterminds like the aforementioned Barghouti?

There are credible allegations of torture and suppression of evidence when it comes to Palestinians accused of being enemy combatants. I think it's important for people to believe that justice, not vengeance, is being served.

Allegations by Palestinian prisoner groups you mean. They also call imprisoned terrorists "political prisoners".

I don't know the details of the peace plan de jure, but I doubt it's so sweet that every asshole in Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah etc. would stop raiding Israel, stop launching rockets, killing Jews whenever, when ever they can. I do think a good deal would make the less fanatic back off, and the more pragmatic relent entirely.

There is nothing short of dissolution of Israel that would make Hamas, IJ et al stop engaging in terrorism. Therefore, the only choice is to destroy them.

However, I also believe a sweet deal, or even any deal that allows a Palestinian State for be established on Palestine, would inspire fanatic Zionists to murder anyone who supports it, even Jews.

There are far more fanatic Palestinians than fanatic Israelis. "Zionist" is a loaded term, being often used by groups opposed to the very existence of Israel. Your continued use of it is telling.

Likewise for any deal that grants full and equal rights to Palestinians in a One State solution.

That is a horrible plan, as Palestinians would make Jews second class citizens - if not worse - as soon as they can.

Justice, fairness, respect, and upholding the rights of all persons equally is the only thing that has ever resolved conflicts like the one going on in Israel and Palestine. The sooner we apply one single standard when we judge the rightness or wrongness of a person's or nation's acts, the better for everyone.

The problem is that you do not apply a single standard, you engage in false equivalence.

IMO bombing civilians who have gathered together to seek shelter, or to get a hot meal, or to enjoy a music festival, is utterly immoral no matter who did it to whom. The perpetrators must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box, and those who have chosen diplomacy and negotiation instead of terrorism and brutality must be supported.

Hamas would likely win any election held in the near future. As far as "bombing civilians who have gathered together to seek shelter, or to get a hot meal" that is according to Hamas sources inside Gaza. Any reason they should be believed?

 

[Arctish]

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

I do not see why the 1967 should be regarded as permanent borders. It was merely the state when the fighting stopped in 1949. It has no other significance. They can be basis for negotiation, but should not be considered sacrosanct.

Whether or not you see it doesn't matter.

The Israeli government and the PLO agreed that Israel's border would be there when the Oslo Accords were signed, with the possibility of adjustments made via land swaps.

I realize you want to throw out the Oslo Accords and start over from scratch. There are probably quite a few Israelis who want the same. But there are also those who want to build on what was already negotiated.

Neither you nor I have the final say. That's up to the Israelis and the Palestinians to work out.

Hamas offered to do it years ago.

No they did not. That is a piece of propaganda.
The new charter merely sees the 1967 borders (and with injecting millions of descendens of 1968 refugees into Israel) as a stepping stone in its end goal of destroying Israel.

It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again.

Again? They never have.
Hamas: New Charter, Same Old Anti-Semitism

With regard to the ’67 lines, the new charter states that the “establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the displaced in their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.”
But in the same paragraph where Hamas speaks of the ‘1967 lines, it also says: “Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine should be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” Which is it?

Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference.

That is not going to be possible in the near or even medium term.

Then there will be no peace.

chokehold on the Gazan economy and its frequent withholding of donated food and humanitarian aid does more to inflame the situation that anything else. Perhaps Egypt or Saudi Arabia would be willing to be the principal import/export destination, so that what comes in and out of Gaza can be inspected.

Had Gaza not reacted with war and terror to the 2005 disengagement, it could have gained more independence as time went on, instead of less. Every restriction has been a response to some nefarious Palestinian act. Even things like cancer patients travelling through the Erez Crossing had to be restricted because Hamas just can't help itself from being evil.
Gazan sisters accused of smuggling explosives as cancer medicine

If you want peace you have to be willing to allow the Gazans to succeed in building up their economy and improving their living situation. You have to keep the lid off the pressure cooker, not put it back in place and turn up the heat.

Gaza has to do its part. That means that after Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers, Gaza should not have responded by shooting hundreds of rockets into Israel.

You make it sound like that was the immediate response. It wasn't. There were years of issues and scores of dead civilians before hundreds of rockets were fired. As you well know.

 

[Arctish]

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. are where violent bigots gather to plan and commit acts designed to force their opponents to comply with their desires. Just like Zionist terrorists who devised and implemented Plan Dalet.

Those two are hardly comparable. And not only because the former is happening right now and the latter is almost ~75 years in the past.

I think Israel needs to stop bombing Gaza because it is killing thousands of unarmed civilians.

Many German civilians died in the last year of WWII as well. That does not mean it was wrong to bomb Germany.

Their deaths won't make Israel any safer, it will rightfully turn more and more people against Israel.

That remains to be seen. Hamas gained in popularity after 10/7 because of the murderous success of that operation, not because of Israel's response. If Hamas is allowed to survive it will claim victory and become all the more popular for it.

I think Israel needs to not only stop building settlements, it needs to relocate the settlers and offer the empty housing to the Palestinians it made refugees when Zionists and the IDF destroyed their homes.

Israel has historic connection to Judea and Samaria. More so than Arabs (many of them recent immigrants from places like Egypt or Yemen) who had to only live there for two years between 1946 and 1948 for them and their descendants to count as "Palestinian refugees" in perpetuity.

Palestine refugees are defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.”

Not even UNRWA is buying the claim that Palestinians are the indigenous population of the Land of Israel.

I think Israel should never stop wanting the hostages back, and not expect the Palestinians to stop wanting their people back either.

Yet another of your false equivalences.
Israeli hostages are innocent. Those whom you euphemistically describe as "their people" as terrorists serving time in Israeli prisons. People like Abdullah Barghouti who is serving 67 life terms for being involved in a large number of Hamas terrorist attacks.

I think Israel should release everyone it is holding in administrative detention, i.e. prisoners who have never been charged with any crime, much less convicted, and should allow an impartial international panel to review the evidence and court proceedings of any non-Israeli who was convicted of a crime.

Administrative detention is a tool used to detain terror suspects. There is no trial, but a judge still has to sign off on it.

First you say the Palestinians in Israeli prisons are terrorists, then you say they are only suspected of being terrorists. And in the past you have acknowledged that peace activists and children who throw stones at tanks are in there, too.

I think you're making excuses for the IDF imprisoning whoever they damn well feel like imprisoning.

It is in principle not much different than holding Al Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo, except that a judge has to renew the detention order every six months.
Why should Israel submit to a supposedly "impartial" international panel to review sentences of terrorist masterminds like the aforementioned Barghouti?

There are credible allegations of torture and suppression of evidence when it comes to Palestinians accused of being enemy combatants. I think it's important for people to believe that justice, not vengeance, is being served.

Allegations by Palestinian prisoner groups you mean. They also call imprisoned terrorists "political prisoners".

I don't know the details of the peace plan de jure, but I doubt it's so sweet that every asshole in Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hezbollah etc. would stop raiding Israel, stop launching rockets, killing Jews whenever, when ever they can. I do think a good deal would make the less fanatic back off, and the more pragmatic relent entirely.

There is nothing short of dissolution of Israel that would make Hamas, IJ et al stop engaging in terrorism. Therefore, the only choice is to destroy them.

Okay, one more time for the slow of reading:

IMO Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box. There are too many violent bigoted assholes in the organization for it to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

However, I also believe a sweet deal, or even any deal that allows a Palestinian State for be established on Palestine, would inspire fanatic Zionists to murder anyone who supports it, even Jews.

There are far more fanatic Palestinians than fanatic Israelis. "Zionist" is a loaded term, being often used by groups opposed to the very existence of Israel. Your continued use of it is telling.

Likewise for any deal that grants full and equal rights to Palestinians in a One State solution.

That is a horrible plan, as Palestinians would make Jews second class citizens - if not worse - as soon as they can.

Justice, fairness, respect, and upholding the rights of all persons equally is the only thing that has ever resolved conflicts like the one going on in Israel and Palestine. The sooner we apply one single standard when we judge the rightness or wrongness of a person's or nation's acts, the better for everyone.

The problem is that you do not apply a single standard, you engage in false equivalence.

What are you calling a false equivalence? That all persons have rights that should be respected equally?

That doesn't mean some people should get away with murder, you know.

IMO bombing civilians who have gathered together to seek shelter, or to get a hot meal, or to enjoy a music festival, is utterly immoral no matter who did it to whom. The perpetrators must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box, and those who have chosen diplomacy and negotiation instead of terrorism and brutality must be supported.

Hamas would likely win any election held in the near future. As far as "bombing civilians who have gathered together to seek shelter, or to get a hot meal" that is according to Hamas sources inside Gaza. Any reason they should be believed?

What makes you think that only Hamas is reporting the goings-on in Gaza? Are you completely unaware that journalists have been on the ground there for years, and that so many of them have been so close to the fighting that over 70 journalists have been killed in Gaza over the past 12 months?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Netanyahu unveils plan for Gaza’s future post-Hamas | CNN

Israel’s Netanyahu unveiled a plan for the Gaza’s future post-Hamas, which includes the “complete demilitarization” of the enclave, closing off the territory’s southern border with Egypt, as well as the overhaul of Gaza’s civil administration and education systems.

amp.cnn.com

 

[laughing dog]

I think they spent much time and effort in making rules that 1) would keep their enemies hopefully in check, and 2) minimize blowback on themselves when they acted.

"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder or the maker of the rules.

Only the supporters of terrorism have a hard time distinguishing terrorism from valid targets.

You continue to confuse your moral judgments with universal truths.