This is a war of propaganda. Brush up on your media literacy skills. Trace sources. Make sure what you’re spreading isn’t false. If you can’t verify it don’t post it. Please.
🇳🇱
@kjetil_kilhavn @freemo @Miriamm I generally agree, but is attacking terrorists while they are hiding behind human shields an atrocity?
@realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @freemo I suppose it depends who you ask. I suggest you ask the so-called human shields. Then there are the more obvious things like destroying the power and water supply, bombing hospitals, denying delivery of medicines etc.
How could they not hide behind human shields.. They live in very tightly packed ghettos... there are no isolated military bunkers... Literally there is no place for them to be except in civlian locations.
@freemo @Miriamm @kjetil_kilhavn I don’t know enough details to agree, but that’s not a point that I’m arguing.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @kjetil_kilhavn Wha? It is absolutely not the case that they have no choice but to have military installations in the same buildings as hospitals/schools/residences. There are "literally" other places they could have them.
You seem to be under the impression that Gaza is completely covered, every square inch, in civilian buildings? This is, *of course*, not the case.
Wha? It is absolutely not the case that they have no choice but to have military installations in the same buildings as hospitals/schools/residences.
There is a huge difference between a military installation and hamas simply being present. As we covered with both sides using human shields I am not claiming there arent instances of them doing just that, using human shields, as Israel has on multiple occasions. What I am saying is in the overwhelming majority of cases they bomb civilian locations simply because hamas are present at all, even when they are not using it for military purposes.
> You seem to be under the impression that Gaza is completely covered, every square inch, in civilian buildings? This is, *of course*, not the case.
So they all have to stand in an open field where the inevitable result is a few bombs to whipe them out in a matter of a seconds? When people fight for their freedom (and im not saying these guys arent terrorists), it is not unheard of for them to integrate with civilians in an attempt to be covert, when your on the loosing side this particular aspect is to be expected.. its only when they use people as human shields by actively attacking from a location without letting the civilians leave that it becomes an issue (something both sides are guilty of).
What I am saying is in the overwhelming majority of cases they bomb civilian locations simply because hamas are present at all, even when they are not using it for military purposes
No, you said that #Hamas operates among civilians because there isn’t enough room for them to build military installations, which to my knowledge is just not true.
No not what I said, or at least not what I intended to say.
They generally integrate with the population for gurilla reasons.. when they "operate" out of a location with civilians its just wrong if they dont let the civilians evacuate (which has happened, israel has done the same).
The reason is, yes, because they cant build military installations. That isnt a reason to use civilians as shields, but it is a reaason to hold their operations in civilian meeting spaces.
As a reminder this aspect is quite common among gurilla warfare, for the "freedom fighters" to have meetings and gather in secret among civilians. Where it becomes wrong is if they launch attacks and use civilians as shields.
Now to the point of why they do this, yes, it goes back to what I said if they walk out to a field and try to build a military building then israel will just bomb it and kill them all off before they even have a chance. They certainly are under no obligation to commit suicide either.
@freemo @Miriamm @ech @kjetil_kilhavn Agreed to a degree (not sure if they cannot literally build military installations or not, but yep #Israel would take it out if they tried).
It’s understandable, but not justifiable to sacrifice Palestinian lives for their political cause.
Its not about sacraficing lives... its a bit more nuanced than that.
When they simply keep their installations underground and in civilian populations this, in and of itself, is perfectly normal and accepted gorilla warfare. Its also in many cases (not all) with the blessing of the civilians I suspect. Jews did this during WWII (hiding stashes of weapons in civilian locations) and generally operated covertly and hiding among civlians... all of this is fine.
Where it becomes an issue is when they are actively firing from a location and use children or ciuvilians as shields by not allowing them to leave the zone of fire. This is where it becomes very very wrong... and sadly this is also on par with what israel does where they have been caught using children from palestine as human shields also.
@realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @freemo @kjetil_kilhavn It's only understandable because we understand that they don't care about civilians.
This is somewhat common in war – the leadership has twisted motivations misaligned with the population, causing a war to happen or affecting how it is carried out. Consider how Putin is happy to have thousands of his own troops slaughtered and wreck his economy if it means he can cement his position and personal security. Similarly the Kim dynasty in NK: it doesn't bother them in the slightest that their people are starving, as long as they remain firmly in power. It's not like they ever went hungry themselves.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @kjetil_kilhavn "for the "freedom fighters" to have meetings and gather in secret among civilians"
If they were freedom fighters who cared about the people they claim to be fighting for I think they'd do things a bit differently.
I am not claiming they are freedom fighters in the sense that they are acting morally.
My point is only the part where they integrate with civilians is perfectly normal and not anything that speaks against them... What is is when they actively fire and use people as shields against their will, which is a seperate issue (and again something israel is guilty of too).
@realcaseyrollins @Miriamm @freemo @kjetil_kilhavn I don't think they have much choice but to go after the terrorists at this point. I think it is incumbent on them to do this with minimal collateral damage, though – I'm ignorant about the best way to do that?
@ech @Miriamm @freemo @kjetil_kilhavn I think precise ground offensives without a siege would probably be the best way to do that. Who knows if any Palestinians have been starved to death due to the siege (which, if they have, would be against the #GenevaConventions as I understand it). With ground offensives, they can pinpoint #Hamas members more directly. Problem is they have extensive tunnel systems, so #IDF soldiers could easily get ambushed and captured. I think that’s why they did the siege, to weaken them as much as possible and decrease that advantage.
What do you mean "who knows"... Israel has been quite public about the fact that it walls in palestinians with no resources or room to grow then shuts off their water and electricity for months on end... We know for a **fact** tons of palestinians were killed through these actions and its something they have done continually even during times of peace.
During the full 2 years I was there the electricity and warer were intentionally turned off to huge portions. They admit to this publicly, they threaten with this constantly, and do it constantly.
What do you mean “who knows”
I mean, at the very least, that I do not know. I have yet to see any evidence that anyone has died through starvation or dehydration in #Gaza due to the siege.
So you dont understand how highly dense urban ghettos without water or electricity for many months on end leads to tons of deaths... I mean you wont hear about it because its indirect, they dont have running water so they shit in the stream, the same stream that is now their only source of unclean water so they drink from it or wash with it.
You dont understand how it would be damn near impossible for people not to die from that? It just is indirect enough youll have a hard time quantifying it.
@freemo @Miriamm @ech @kjetil_kilhavn Yes I do, I’m not that dense. I already said what I meant. I presume that it’s only a matter of time before civilians die due to the siege if they haven’t already. It takes more than “there’s a siege!” for me to believe that there have already been casualties though.
The water and electricity has been off for much of gaza for more than 2 years (it was off the whole time i was there) due to Israel military intervention...
The only thing that changed is they decided to cut it off for MORE of the country than before... people have already been starving and dieing of disease en masse (why do you think so many international agencies are condemning them for apartheid?)
Whenyou understand the level of poverty and disease inflicted on them for many many years it might make sense why they are radicalizing. As I've said it is never moral, but when your people have been treated as they have for as long as they have it is completely expected. They are desperate, desperate people whoa re being exterminated will do crazy radical shit.
Both sides are projecting, sure.
But only one side has a charter that says "extinction of the other side"... Their sole purpose and reason to exist are to kill everyone in Israel.
And somehow the Gaza people voted for that, sure a long time ago, but if you don't object to your leaders, then you are also partially responsible for what they do.
This Israeli is challenging everyone prove him wrong. Please, go at it; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk
> But only one side has a charter that says "extinction of the other side"
I assume you mean Israel?
> Their sole purpose and reason to exist are to kill everyone in Israel.
Oops nevermind.. Neither side wants the other to be killed off (except for a few really angry people). They do however want their land, The Israelis want the land they have had for.. about one generation. The Palestinians want the lang they have had for hundreds of generations.
It is no suprise (though no mirally justified) that the side that was there the longest, and have no had their home occupied for nearly a century, is becoming increasingly radicalized. Thats the consequence when you treat people as subhuman for long enough.
From Wikipedia;
<quote>
The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[3] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.
</quote>
The Arabs have consistently rejected the two State solution that has been proposed since 1897 or so.
The Israeli haven't.
End of moral high grounds.
> The Arabs have consistently rejected the two State solution that has been proposed since 1897 or so.
> The Israeli haven't.
>
> End of moral high grounds.
It is their country, they were there and were invaded.. they are under no moral obligation to accept a 2 state solution. Jews were allowed freely in the palestinian state, there was a working one-state solution. Then the Jews wanted to steal the state fromt eh palestinians and think they have the moral high ground? They lost the moral high ground the second they invaded and started taking land.
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid You're wrong here. Even Hamas have been willing to accept a two state solution. Israel say in public they are for a two state solution, but their actions speak loudly. They build new settlements in occupied territory and dispel the people who lived there. United Nations has condemned this, just like they condemn terrorist attacks.
"Hamas have been willing to accept a two state solution"; Please enlighten me with a link to where that is stated officially. Thanks.
"Settlement on West Bank"; I agree, that is nasty play.
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders - Al Jazeera https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2017/5/2/hamas-accepts-palestinian-state-with-1967-borders
And the other side view of this (the Hamas changes of their stated intentions) is; https://forward.com/opinion/564190/hamas-charter-truth/
Basically (paraphrased); "Hamas only changed the intention of destroying the jews to destroying the state of Israel (the Zionist project)."
The point in the article of Hamas funding from Qatar getting Netanyahu's support is a very interesting one.
Is it simply that all state actors want the keep the FEAR in the people to stay in power?
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid
As the first intifada wound down in 1993, the Oslo peace process started with secret talks between Israel and the PLO. Israel’s then prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, signed an agreement with Arafat aimed at fulfilling the “right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” although Rabin did not accept the principle of a Palestinian state.
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid
Among Israelis, the political charge against Oslo was led by future prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, who fronted rallies at which Rabin was portrayed as a Nazi. Rabin’s widow blamed the two men for her husband’s assassination by an ultranationalist Israeli in 1995.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/13/why-israel-palestine-conflict-history?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
And I kindly ask you to challenge the Isaeli guy in the video... He has a couple of very easy ones to prove wrong, if one listens to pro-Palestinian sources.
FTR; I am on neither side.
if the guy is in this thread ill be happy to talk to him... Otherwise i have little interest in a video. If you want to make a point from that video however I'm all ears.
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid
You are on neither side? 🤣🤣
You could have fooled me....
Why don't you challenge the video guy yourself if you're so obsessed with him?
"fooled you"; Sorry, that you are easily fooled, apparently not only by me.
"10 times more arabs"; Now you are entering the question of "where in history do you make the cut-off line?" Whatever date you pick, you will have massive problems around the world;
Turks going back to Central Asia?
Europeans and Africans in North and South America shipped back to their continents and demolish all their legacy?
@niclas @freemo @Miriamm @samuraikid
I see what you say. Yes, the people in Gaza voted for Hamas. Last time I read up on democracy that means you are free to vote, and no matter what you vote it can't be used as justification to kill you. I see you have a different view of what democracy means.
I saw the first couple of minutes of the video and could already have pointed out that there were no Israelis either at the time he claims there were no Palestinians.
Before Israel was formed and the invasion started there were 10 times more arabs than jews in the region.
@freemo @kjetil_kilhavn @niclas @Miriamm @samuraikid Freemo my guy you gotta stop calling it an "invasion".
Calling refugee immigration an "invasion" is an dickish thing to do. Please stop. It makes you look like those xenophobes in the US who talk about central american immigrant "invasions".
There were waves of immigration from 1900 on, predictably leading to tension and violence against the immigrants. (Britain I think did not do a great job dealing with this in a number of ways!)
None of this in the slightest has anything to do with whether Israel is justified in the way they are prosecuting this war against Hamas baby killing terrorists, of course, which is another reason to stop saying it.
Its not "refugee immigration" if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated, they did not.
By collectively, as immigrants, stealing land from someone else, then invading it with missiles and guns and military, is absolutely an invasion.
> There were waves of immigration from 1900 on, predictably leading to tension and violence against the immigrants. (Britain I think did not do a great job dealing with this in a number of ways!)
Unfortunately illegal immigrants tend to cause a lot of anger and violence.. it isnt right. But that doesnt excuse the genocide that followed.
And while I agree the hamas commiting attrocities would be a reason to consider stop saying it, the fact the israel has commited similar or even worse attrocities over its reign negates that fact.
Neither side is right, both sides are littered with war crimes, both sides have used children intentionally as human shields... no one gets a moral pass.
@freemo @kjetil_kilhavn @niclas @Miriamm @samuraikid "if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated" Why in the world would you think that? I mean, that would have been great, I guess, and it happened to some extent, *of course*. But the groups maintain their identities/religions/etc as they always have; I think to a large extent groups lived in separate towns, etc.
"illegal immigrants" I don't think it was illegal, generally, was it? Why do you say that?
I suggest you don't know what you're talking about here? This seems like the other day when you claimed there was never a nation called "Israel" before 1940s?
There have been Jews in the area, continuously, for 1000s of years. There has been tension at least since the refugee immigration waves started 100+ years ago. Nebi Musa riots, and so on. People from both groups have committed completely unjustified violence, of course. The situation we are in today is a direct result of those issues building and building, never being resolved.
Again: none of this has anything, at all, whatsoever, to do with whether Israel is justified in the manner in which it is prosecuting this war against Hamas, or other punitive things it does like bulldozing suicide bombers' houses, or whether or not it is being negligent in policing settler violence, or, even whether the Arab invasions and continued rocket attacks justify the sea blockades of Gaza, etc, etc, etc.
"I agree the Hamas commiting attrocities would be a reason to consider stop saying it" That would of course have nothing to do with whether Israel "invaded".
> "if that was the case they would have immigrated to Palestine and integrated" Why in the world would you think that? I mean, that would have been great, I guess, and it happened to some extent, *of course*. But the groups maintain their identities/religions/etc as they always have; I think to a large extent groups lived in separate towns, etc.
Because your trying to make the absurd claim they arent invaders, just immigrants... immigrants dont come with bombs and guns to take away your land, thats not immigrants, thats invaders, also called an occupying force.
As with any diverse country prior to the invasion there were a great many mixed settlements, and there were some that were primarily jewish or arab.. However the arabs in the area out numbered Jews 10:1, palestine had this makeup for many generations. Despite the overwhelming arab concentration jews were generally welcomed and even allowed to buy land... until they started invading anyway.
> "illegal immigrants" I don't think it was illegal, generally, was it? Why do you say that?
Depends how you view illegal. Early on they werent illegal, but at this point the overwhelming majority of ISraelis are illegal immigrants according to the people/governance who have the right to control that land (palestinians).
> I suggest you don't know what you're talking about here? This seems like the other day when you claimed there was never a nation called "Israel" before 1940s?
I misinterprited what experts had said on a reading.. when challenged I reread and changed my opinion... Perhaps you should use that to recognize that I am willing to consider counter evidence and easily change my views when proven wrong.. Would go a much longer way than using it as a weapon against someone simply for making a mistake, and learning from it once. Should be proof that I wont continue to assert a thing if there is evidence to the contrary.
> Again: none of this has anything, at all, whatsoever, to do with whether Israel is justified in the manner in which it is prosecuting this war against Hamas, or other punitive things it does like bulldozing suicide bombers' houses, or whether or not it is being negligent in policing settler violence, or, even whether the Arab invasions and continued rocket attacks justify the sea blockades of Gaza, etc, etc, etc.
Ummm, who is the invading and occupying force has **everything** to do with if ISrael or anyone else has a right to continue a war... like a lot to do with it.
The fact that botht he Hamas and Isrtael are committing atrocities and war crimes left and right, and have been doing so for 80 years certainly doesnt give anyone a pass for their continuation of such war crimes.
@freemo They didn't "come with" weapons – what on earth are you talking about?
They organized armed security and military capabilities in response to the violence they experienced and so on. In situ, yes? The immigrants that came were, you know, immigrants. You know this, right? Can you see that the way you're talking about it makes it sound like all the refugees that came were armed to the teeth and hit the ground shooting or something? Is this some weird definition of "invade" you're using for rhetorical reasons?
Of course, this doesn't justify anything they did with those security forces once they built them! That's an entirely separate issue, and more germane to who is justified doing what this week.
"at this point the overwhelming majority of ISraelis are illegal immigrants"
what are you even talking about
"willing to consider counter evidence and easily change my views" – I did think that, yes. That's why I'm engaging with you here.
> So they all have to stand in an open field where the inevitable result is a few bombs to whipe them out in a matter of a seconds?
No, they should not build their military headquarters and storage in civilian buildings. You know, like any civilized nation would do.
> They didn’t “come with” weapons – what on earth are you talking about?
Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group of other nations decided to invade palestine and take the land from palestinians and give it to the Israelis. They came with weapons to take this land for themselves and the first Arab-israeli war began for the palestinians to defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land. This lasted from 1947 to 1849
> They organized armed security and military capabilities in response to the violence they experienced and so on.
The violence they expiernce from invading the country and taking it... please stop pretending they are the victims here... they literally were invading Palestine and taking it.. they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it.... funny how you just ignore that part and make it sound like they were just palestinian immigrants... they werent.
> what are you even talking about
I am talking about the fact that since Israel is an occupyign and invading force, and it is not and never was their land (it is palestine)... they are illegal immigrants by any measure of that at best, and an occupying force at worst.
> No, they should not build their military headquarters and storage in civilian buildings. You know, like any civilized nation would do.
They are using the exact same tactics in that regard as freedom fighters dduring WWII, and really any nation being occupied and unable to have a proper army.. That is, their military and its equipment are hidden in the underground... Again nothing wrong with that, what is wrong is when they use human shields during an active attack, somethign Israel also does.
@freemo "Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group " – came from where? They were already there. But you know this? I don't understand what you're trying to do here.
"they are illegal immigrants" Again, what? When Jewish refugees were coming in like 1925 under the British you're saying that was illegal? Can you give me a source on that? Was it illegal before the British took over?
"defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land." and "they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it…." No? The British, eager to get out, had to leave something behind when they left, so they partitioned according to where people lived at the time, yes? (or had the UN do it) There's plenty to say regarding how the partition plan should have been done differently, of course, but I can't fathom how it is a "literal invasion".
Then, there was a war, of course, immediately after the partition. (The UN is so useless.) I guess there were foreign fighters in this war – ex-Axis fighters, arabs from outside Palestine, etc. I wouldn't really call that an "invasion", though – the main combatants/sides were local to the area.
"please stop pretending they are the victims here" At various times certain Jews were certainly victims! And at other times and places they were the victimizers. Of course; and we both know this, so, again, I don't understand why you're saying this.
> “Of course they came with weapons.. what are YOU on about? On may 1947 they and a group “ – came from where? They were already there. But you know this? I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here.
No, there were **very** few isralis already there. Prior to the invasion there were about 160K Palestinian Jews, some of whom chose to stay palestinian at the start of the invasion. Contrast this with the 800K arabs in the area.
Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN, declared they would invade an annex half of palestine for themselves), The resulting population, as part of right-of-return, skyrocketed.
As a result of this invasion by the end of the year in 1947 (the invasion was made official earlier that year) the invading jewish population had more trippled in that short time to over 630.
So no they werent "already there" 2/3 of the invasion were jews from around the world who migrated there to participate in the invasion either as a settler to the newly stolen land, or as military themselves. Often a bit of both.
> “they are illegal immigrants” Again, what? When Jewish refugees were coming in like 1925 under the British you’re saying that was illegal? Can you give me a source on that? Was it illegal before the British took over?
Yes, the british had no rights to allow **anyone** to come, they were occupying Palestinian territory and they had no right to allow anyone in or out, or to occupy the space at all.
So while people may have come thinking it was legal, since the British occupation is illegitmate (as all occupations are) and only the native people had any right to allow immigration, yes they were wholly illegal as an occupying force.
> “defend their land and prevent the invasion and annexing of their land.” and “they just decalred one day half the country was theirs and then went in and took it….” No? The British, eager to get out, had to leave something behind when they left, so they partitioned according to where people lived at the time, yes? (or had the UN do it) There’s plenty to say regarding how the partition plan should have been done differently, of course, but I can’t fathom how it is a “literal invasion”.
No, it was not where they were living at the time. Arabs and jews were intermixed throughout the country. Yes there were some towns for one group or the other in some cases, but those towns were often intermixed among the landscape.
Also, britain doesnt get to split up a country that already existed... their claim to palestine was as invalid as the Jews. The british didnt live there, only a population of citizens has any moral right to decide to split their country, and this is NOT what happened
To drive my point home attached is a map of the Jewish settlements pretty much the day before the invasion was declared (left).. AS you can see they re intermixed with palestinian/arab land, and this was all one country.
On the right, however, is the borders they declared in their own and intended to Annex in the invasion of 1947 and the war that followed. As you can see not only did they steal **significant** land that had no jews on it.. but the borders change the dynamic significantly since at the time Jews made up something like 10% of the population yet were given more than 50% of the land.
So yea its very clear they invaded and stole land and your narrative of them already being on the land is over the inaccurate.
@ech And to further drive the point home... attached is the border of palestine in 1919 as recognized internationally **before** the invalid british take over. AS you can clearly see before the British not only was it 100% Palestine with no large swaths of Jewish land at all (the jews were there but largely intermixed)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palestine_claimed_by_WZO_1919.png
So basically the brits invaded, took over, told jews they could come there, displaced the muslims by about 10%, and then the brits left and said the Jews now owned more than 50% of the land.
Sorry but thats an invasion by any measure.
@freemo @Miriamm I think we can safely say that the following is true: Both sides commit atrocities.
Hamas killed soldiers, but they also deliberately targeted and murdered civilians.
Israel say they target terrorists and say the dead civilians are unfortunate collateral damage. To a dead civilian I don't think that distinction matters much.
However, if the attack came as a surprise, can we really trust the Israeli armed forces when they say they know where the military targets are?