Israel to send team to Gaza talks despite Hamas demands, PM says
Posted by Leather-Paramedic-10@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 212 comments
Posted by Leather-Paramedic-10@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 212 comments
zlex@reddit
That does seem like an incredibly unrealistic demand. I can’t see Israel just giving away all their leverage in exchange for nothing. There would have to be a significant concession from Hamas in return.
ijzerwater@reddit
what's the point in negotiating for a six week pause after which the bombing, starvation restart again?
Volodio@reddit
Hamas gets to regroup, reorganize and regenerate its forces, just like in previous ceasefire.
It is also an opportunity to negotiate a more permanent ceasefire where Hamas returns all the hostages and their bodies, though I think it's unlikely Hamas is ready to go that far.
ijzerwater@reddit
Hamas gets to regroup for six weeks, that's it? while still being blockaded and no rebuilding inGaza since who would start rebuilding if Israel can just on a whim restart?
Volodio@reddit
This is not a permanent ceasefire. The war is still ongoing. The ceasefire gives time for Hamas to see the casualties it suffered, to reorganize accordingly, to resupply, to switch to better positions, to regenerate, to recruit new people, to prepare new defenses, to create a new strategy and communicate it to everyone. It also gives time to negotiate a permanent ceasefire if they wish or to leverage its international support against Israel in order to pressure it to get a better diplomatic position or even to end the war on Hamas' terms (unlikely it would work, but Hamas might still believe it).
ijzerwater@reddit
alternatively, Hamas just want a permanent cease fire so Gaza can be rebuild. Israel seeks a temporary cease fire, so they can attack again
Volodio@reddit
Yes, Hamas would want a full Israeli withdrawal, to stay in power and to keep the hostages. It is not to rebuild Gaza but to rebuild their organization. Israel will not accept these terms for obvious reasons so Hamas has to compromise on some of its points if it wants peace, notably on the release of the hostages and its control over a post-war Gaza.
ijzerwater@reddit
if Israel want peaceful Gaza they should give it a bright future. This would remove Hamas. Make it a dark future and if not Hamas then new Hamas or worse will appear
GoodBadUserName@reddit
That a bit ignores history.
After israel left gaza completely (2005). At that time gaza had an airport, and a seaport. Both fully functioning. There was a lot of trade (mostly agriculture) from gaza, and hundreds of thousands of palestinians had a license to work in israel (out of 1.3M palestinians living in gaza at the time).
Gaza chose hamas in 2006 election. Who were openly calling to the destruction of israel, to killing jews, calling for intifada.
So that "bright future" barely lasted a year.
When in 2006 they kidnapped a soldier who was patrolling on the border via tunnel that reached the border. That was the start of the full blockage on gaza. That is when israel destroyed part of the airport. The seaport was still active, until late 2006 and early 2007 israel when israel caught cargo ships carrying a large amount of weapons into gaza. That was also when the sea siege also started, since they couldn't trust any imports going freely into gaza.
So yeah, gaza had plenty of opportunities for a bright future. Why every time they went the other way?
redelastic@reddit
I mean, you choose to exclude that Israel supported the rise of Hamas, which seems quite dishonest really.
GoodBadUserName@reddit
Israel did not support its rise. That is still a myth talked by dishonest people.
Hamas founded after the first intifada and had nothing to do with israel involvement in its power.
That ridiculous claim comes from one book intentionally put out of context. The reason it was claimed israel “supported” was during the elections in 2005-2006, when hamas went 180 on their claims of forceful and violent resistance and called to rebuild and support the Palestinians, in order to gain support for elections. To differentiate themselfs and appear as a real political party.
Sharon gave their “support” in the hope to promote divide between PLO which supported the second intifada and gaza, hoping to force at least one territory into peace.
The book that your myth comes from is free online. But I’m sure you never had nor will read it.
redelastic@reddit
A "myth" with its own Wikipedia page, complete with 68 sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas
Are you seriously suggesting that four Israeli Prime Ministers, several Ministers and senior IDF figures were all lying about it?
GoodBadUserName@reddit
I really like that you don't bother to read your own links.
Claiming hamas is a strategic assent that helps israel in the world view on the palestinians and their support to terrorism, does not mean they support hamas. It does not mean they have helped to establish hamas.
Smotrich said it in 2015 in an interview. The existence of hamas is a tool that israel uses to prevent the palestinian state. Which is a bit part of the right wing government agenda. But none of that actually mean supporting them as you claim.
Both barak and olmet have done the same thing netanyahu have done. They have allowed transfers of money and support to gaza, regardless of who was in charge there, in order to help the continue of government systems there as well as hospitals, etc.
None of the context you quote, nor wiki's supporting links, actually state how israel has been supporting hamas beside using them. The only instance given was the transfer of money from qatar one time. I guess they have never had money before?
redelastic@reddit
Stop lying. You were caught out once and you will be again.
GoodBadUserName@reddit
lol "I will get you!" tactics. Sure...
redelastic@reddit
Stop lying.
GoodBadUserName@reddit
Said the buy who try to falsify history. lol.
ijzerwater@reddit
ignoring West Bank was fully occupied and the land steal sped up in 2005 is a huge thing there.
GoodBadUserName@reddit
That is completely incorrect.
Sharon as PM was pushing to reduce amount of settlements in the west bank. He lost elections because his voters were angry he was pushing settlers out of west bank. Olmet who replaced him led a similar line and pushed to reduce settlements, trying to appease PLO and tried to push for peace.
ijzerwater@reddit
in effect the number of colonists increased. That's the facts on the ground
Year | West Bank | Gaza Strip | East Jerusalem | Golan Heights | Total
2000 | 192,976 |6,678 | 172,250 | 15,955 |387,859 2002 | 214,722 | 7,277 | 175,617 | 16,503 | 414,119 2003 | 224,669 | 7,556 | 178,601 | 16,791 | 427,617 2004 | 234,487 | 7,826 | 181,587 | 17,265 | 441,828 2005 | 258,988 | 0 | 184,057 | 17,793 | 460,838 2006 | 268,400 | 0 | 186,857 | 18,105 | 473,362 2007 | 276,462 | 0 | 189,708 | 18,692 | 484,862
GoodBadUserName@reddit
The number increases due to israel removing all small settlements which were deemed illegal in israel courts and moved those people to the larger ones.
The larger ones were not planned to be removed even during the 90s peace talks and were to be land exchanged.
The overall land the settlers held was hugely reduced.
ijzerwater@reddit
The number increases, so it is more colonists. All the rest is hasbara
GoodBadUserName@reddit
I guess people magically appear out of thin air, since I guess you never heard of birth.
Israel after all is genociding the palestinians for decades. After all, their number increased from 1.3M in 2005 or 2M now, how does that work with genocide?
Onion_Guy@reddit
Hamas has been offering release of hostages since 10/9/23. They’ve also been trying to relinquish control of Gaza but Israel rejected that deal and said they have to stay in control.
Volodio@reddit
You just made it up. Israel since the beginning has been trying to remove Hamas from Gaza and get the hostages back. It was precisely because Hamas cannot agree to those conditions that the war is still not ended.
Onion_Guy@reddit
No, it’s because Hamas keeps refusing an Israel-controlled Gaza and Israel refuses a permanent ceasefire.
GothicGolem29@reddit
Vs no break in fighting at all
GoodBadUserName@reddit
Currently most of hamas are still underground, hiding, trying not to be seen as israel keeps having eyes looking for them, and they are not afraid to drop a bomb on them the moment the put their head out.
And there is very sparse communication between the groups and different militias for the most part.
Having non aggression time, means they can regroup in terms of who in charge, where to do what, where to burn more mines and place more bombs and re-prepare for the next offense as well as redistribute weapons and gear and try to reopen closed or unknown tunnels, etc.
No one is going to rebuild gaza topside any time soon and it will require international help to do so. That will take the good part of a decade at least (bottom side is still hamas land and maybe 20% of it only has been destroyed).
Colodanman357@reddit
Right? They are basically demanding their goal in the negotiations of a permanent ceasefire need to be guaranteed regardless of the outcome of the negotiations as a condition of entering negotiations. I mean how can there be negotiations when one demands a promise of getting whatever they were going to negotiate for, it defeats the purpose of negotiating.
redelastic@reddit
Given Israel continued its attacks during the last so-called ceasefire, it seems reasonable to ask for more guarantees when dealing with an untrustworthy party who has consistently acted in bad faith.
Colodanman357@reddit
As if any of the parties have a history of acting in good faith.
redelastic@reddit
Historically, Israel has breached ceasefires many more times than Hamas.
Israel continued killing civilians during the last so-called ceasefire.
It even assassinated Palestinian negotiators.
Colodanman357@reddit
Are you claiming Hamas operates in good faith and only Israel has ever been in the wrong? You frankly don’t seem like a reasonable person.
Ala117@reddit
Are you claiming israel operates in good faith and only hamas has ever been in the wrong? You frankly don’t seem like a reasonable person.
flaamed@reddit
you bots need to get better at this
Ala117@reddit
Indeed you do.
fre-ddo@reddit
The opposite is also true , Hamas won't give up the small leverage they have because they know the attacks will likely intensify once they do. So things are in a stalemate.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
I think they have to be the bigger people here. If the war continues they lose harder. Roll over, play dead and wait for Israel to buckle without an enemy. They can't win with bullets.
redelastic@reddit
Imagine saying this about people being genocided.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
Fighting clearly doesn't work either. If, in 80 years, your strategy has never worked, maybe you should change it
redelastic@reddit
Or, radical thought: Israel ends its illegal occupation.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
Sure, but waiting for that also hasn't yielded results.
redelastic@reddit
The Palestinians have tried various avenues. Israel has never in good faith wanted to negotiate a meaningful settlement (no pun intended).
flaamed@reddit
very convenient, israel offered land a lot of times, but never in good faith lmao
redelastic@reddit
If you support Israel, you support child murder, rape and concentration camps.
flaamed@reddit
As I commented to someone else, you bots need to work on your scripts
redelastic@reddit
I do find it funny that whenever people don't have an argument for the atrocities they support, they accuse people of being bots.
flaamed@reddit
Ironic
redelastic@reddit
Ah, you don't understand irony. I see.
reddit4ne@reddit
You're reading the situation wrong.
Israel is gonna have a hard time being accepted back in to the cusp of civilized nations. Its now a Pariah state, and the longer the war continues, the more isolated becomes, and more difficult it becomes for Israel to ever ever come back from this and return to the fold of normal civilized nations.
At some point, and we may already be reaching that point, Israel will cross a Rubicon where it will simply be no longer allowed to exist in its present political state -- just like de-Nazification after WWII. The War Crimes Tribunal, the ICJ's arrest warrant already hint at this , and only Israel doest fully comprehend the meaning of that.
There is no way for Netanyahu and his government to return to power, just like there is no real way for Hamas to return to power (politically). The thing is , it seems like Hamas actually understands this, but Netanyahu of course does not. Israeli society is slowly being made to realize, the scope of the coming backlash against it, and as thus, we are seeing Israelis begin to try to detach themselves from being associated with this War, with Benjamin Netanyahu, with the far-right and Likud.
Even though they are in power now, and thus arrogant and too drunk of their power to realize they are being setup to take the fall, to be scapegoated for all of Zionists recent crimes.
So you have elements in the Israeli govt and society that realize this, meanwhile you have Netanyahu not realizing that he's about to be sacrificed and his band of collective dolts are around him. Theyre gonna dump this and claim it was all his fault, sort of like Germany tried to dump all the Nazi era crimes on Hitler. Once Hitler was dead, they could easily get out. So Israel is setting it up that once Netanyhau gets the axe, the rest of Israel can more easily get out of trouble.
redelastic@reddit
Any Israeli commentary I see or hear, they are still in absolute denial of the atrocities Israel is carrying out. There is a mass genocidal delusion taking place in their society.
One need only look at any polls conducted - they care nothing for the crimes against humanity against those in Gaza and show not even basic humanity towards Palestinians. They only care about their few dozen hostages.
In years to come, it will be a convenient narrative to rewrite history and frame it as a sole lunatic leader who enabled a genocide. This will avoid the uncomfortable fact that the vast majority of Israelis supported it and took part in it.
Alternatively, knowing how they have reframed past atrocities against Palestinians, they may even frame it as a war in which glorious Israel - ever the victim - prevailed once again.
BepsiR6@reddit
Why should we care about anyone else other then our hostages there? Show me one gazan who saved a hostage or gave info of where the hostages are.
redelastic@reddit
At least you're honest about being devoid of basic human compassion.
BepsiR6@reddit
Its not lack of human compassion to care more about my own people then people who want to kill me and my family. Its just common sense.
redelastic@reddit
Many people don't see the starvation and mass killing of children and babies as common sense.
Maybe you think the children and babies "want to kill" you and your family?
You expect humanity but dehumanise others. If this is your stance, why would you expect anyone else to give a shit about Israeli civilians being slaughtered.
BepsiR6@reddit
The children and babies and whoever isnt involved in the conflict should be allowed to do what every other civilian does in war and flee the war zone. If they had a sane government the war would already be over with them surrendering as its clear that the war continuing only causes them more pain at this point.
redelastic@reddit
Ah, so you're proposing ethnic cleansing. How very Israeli of you.
No, I blame Israel for carrying out a genocide and among the worst atrocities of the 21st century.
Palestinians should be allowed to stay in their homeland.
Shame on you and your state.
BepsiR6@reddit
Seemingly your against giving them the option to leave though. If anyone's for a genocide I would say its the people advocating for civilians to stay in a war zone instead of letting them leave it.
redelastic@reddit
No, the people carrying out a genocide are responsible - that's Israel.
I get that you'd be delighted to ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians so you can expand your Greater Israel settler colonial project.
Irish people want Palestinians to be free in their homeland.
We want Israel to stop slaughtering children and babies and killing doctors and raping detainees and blowing up cafes and hospitals and mosques and homes and shooting starving people.
Israel is committing very evil acts. It should be held accountable.
BepsiR6@reddit
Thats a lot of words to say that you think they should be stuck in a war zone
redelastic@reddit
No, I think Israel should stop killing women and children so they could be allowed to live in peace. You support genocide and ethnic cleansing.
BepsiR6@reddit
Lets say Israel really was doing a genocide. Why would Ireland not take people from gaza in, in order to save them from the genocide?
redelastic@reddit
It's not relevant, you're trying to change the subject,
Israel needs to stop committing a genocide - and if you have any human decency, you need to stop supporting it.
BepsiR6@reddit
Lol you dont like the question because it exposes you as the fraud hack that you are.
If you genuinely believe that Israel is committing a genocide but dont want any of the gazans to escape from gaza then your an evil person that supports them being completely slaughtered.
Atleast my view is consistent that I dont believe a genocide is occuring there. I dont get how you can hold the view that a genocide is happening there and be against letting them escape. You sound genuinely psychopathic lol.
Full_Distribution874@reddit
Exactly. If the hostages are returned Netanyahu won't be able to hold on to power.
MasterDefibrillator@reddit
They have continually been the bigger people throughout. Initially, Israel wasn't even accepting ceasefire in return for hostages.
fre-ddo@reddit
Bad choice of words there are no bigger people in this but I get your point.
waiver@reddit
But the war would definitively continue after a 60 days vacation if the Israelis dont agree to something permanent.
Volodio@reddit
But the Israelis will not agree to something permanent if there are still hostages and bodies left in Gaza.
reddit4ne@reddit
Its not an unrealistic demand, its just experience with Israel.
And experience with Israel shows that they most definitely WILL start using the threat of violence as bargaining chip in truce talks. That means truce negotiations devolve quickly into "Give us this and this or we'll resume bombing the crap out of you." Its an impossible way to negotiate.
Truce talks are gonna be difficult, extremely contentious, and unlikely to succeed in the first instance anyways (its gonna take a few tries at it). They cannot succeed if one side literally has a gun to its head.
BepsiR6@reddit
Thats generally how surrender agreements work. The war is lost for gaza already.
_Snebb_@reddit
An unrealistic demand, but realistically mandatory given Israels intentional tanking of previous negotiations to continue its annihilation
the1newman2@reddit
Every negotiation has been tanked because Hamas keeps trying to shoehorn this in
redelastic@reddit
False.
the1newman2@reddit
Feel free to prove me wrong with a source
redelastic@reddit
No, you made the false claim. You provide a source.
the1newman2@reddit
No actually the op of this thread did and you chimed in
redelastic@reddit
You made a false claim and have no sources to back it up. Ok.
the1newman2@reddit
How can one show the absence of a Hamas proposal where they agree to cease power in Gaza? Should be easy for you to prove one where they do
redelastic@reddit
"Every negotiation has been tanked because Hamas keeps trying to shoehorn this in"
I asked if you could provide a source for your claim. You cannot.
PartySr@reddit
Starvation and ethnic cleansing.. The funny thing is that they say that want to "save" the hostages, but starving Gaza. The hostages sure will not suffer from that.
PokeEmEyeballs@reddit
I’m also not sure where they want to emigrate the Gazan population to.
The most logical place is Egypt, but I doubt Egypt would just let them in.
What is more likely to happen is Egypt will send them back to Israel across its mostly unguarded Sinai border.
This will make cross border attacks like what we saw on Oct 7 an easy occurrence to repeat.
redelastic@reddit
There is nothing logical about ethnic cleansing.
ycnz@reddit
There's lot of logic. Just zero humanity.
Stubbs94@reddit
The goal is genocide.... They don't care.
GothicGolem29@reddit
If no country accepts then then the plan to relocate everyone just wont work
KaiBahamut@reddit
Well, that's why some of the locations brought up for them are places that can't handle it- Syria and Libya don't really have the capacity to send them back.
GothicGolem29@reddit
If they cant handle it then they wont accept them tho
KaiBahamut@reddit
It's not a matter of 'accept'. Or at least, their acceptance isn't part of the equation, it's the local capability to ship them back or otherwise refuse. With weak militarizes and disorganized governments, Israel could displace tens of thousands before they could organize a response and due to them being poor and disorganized, they don't have the capacity to send them back.
GothicGolem29@reddit
Libya is on a different continent Israel is gonna struggle to push them into that country with military force if Libya rejects them at the border. Syria is more possible as it’s closer but there’s still armed people there who might resist if Israel tried to push that many Palestinians in
AsinusRex@reddit
If that was the goal it would have ended in November 2023.
Lawd_Fawkwad@reddit
You don't actually know what genocide is and it shows.
Articles 2b and 2c of the 1951 Genocide Convention explicitly mention deliberate efforts to cause extreme mental harm or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction in part or of a whole group.
Genocide doesn't actually require mass killing, it's the entire basis for Ukraine trying to pin genocide accusations on Russia and the US accusing China of Genocide against the Uighurs despite no evidence of mass killings.
I won't say if it's a Genocide or not because that's a question for the courts and we don't have the full picture, nonetheless, it's moronic to imply that a plan to starve and deport an entire ethnic group isn't genocidal in it's intent because it hasn't thrown people in cattle cars.
The Native Americans suffered a genocide attempt and deliberate killings were the minority of the deaths, it was all about forced deportation, forced assimilation and policies like killing all the bison so they'd starve.
PotentialIcy3175@reddit
I think prior to to 10/7 most people thought of Genocide as the attempted extermination of a people which is far more serious that what the legal terminology implies. So we see a confusion based on misunderstanding of the definition. The same thing is happening with the term Zionist. When different definitions are used in conversation it makes the communication completely ineffective as people talk past each other.
redelastic@reddit
Most people simply don't know the legal definition of what constitutes genocide and are trying in bad faith to misrepresent its definition to minimise and deflect from Israel's crimes.
PotentialIcy3175@reddit
Trying to parse what you’ve said.
1) Most people don’t know the legal definition of Genocide.
2) they are trying in bad faith to misrepresent the definition
Hmm. Maybe you want to work out this argument off line.
redelastic@reddit
I know the definition of genocide.
It seems you do not know the definition and are in bad faith misrepresenting the definition.
Your response seems to suggest this.
PotentialIcy3175@reddit
You don’t seem to be able to understand why what you wrote is contradictory.
“Most people don’t know the definition of Genocide”
“They are trying in bad faith to misrepresent the definition”
If most people don’t know what the definition of genocide is then they are not acting in bad faith when misrepresenting their incorrect definition. That you know the definition of the term is not relevant to the claim. Read what you wrote, update your model of reality, and have a nice day.
redelastic@reddit
Lol, what is this pretentious tosh.
Nerd off.
redelastic@reddit
Ah, I see you have no understanding of the definition of genocide or any past examples from history.
fre-ddo@reddit
Oh yeah I forgot genocide has a timetable!
callmejellydog@reddit
They could release the hostages? If not, continue to suffer. It seems pretty simple to me.
redelastic@reddit
Such a casual justification of the starvation of a population and ethnic cleansing. You would fit right in with the IDF or Nazis with that mindset.
callmejellydog@reddit
You need to find new words, the Nazi stuff doesn’t mean anything unfortunately, it was overused last year to describe not supporting a trans person and then reached ultimate usage with Elon. Try harder.
redelastic@reddit
Sorry you are justifying genocide.
callmejellydog@reddit
Disagree, any other overused words you want to use? Maybe ethnic cleansing? That hasn’t been used a great deal yet. Maybe if you keep picking drastic words, you might find one that you think makes any difference whatsoever to reality? 🤔
redelastic@reddit
Clearly you don't even understand what those terms mean.
If it's simpler for you: you support the mass killing of children.
callmejellydog@reddit
I know what you are trying to do but it’s not going to work. You need to try much harder. Go fly that flag. You will grow up one day 🥹
redelastic@reddit
I'm not trying to do anything, you've told on yourself.
You support the mass killing of children, starving a population and, now, concentration camps.
flaamed@reddit
this sub hates jews dude, no point to try
Stubbs94@reddit
Israel could end the occupation, and then the attacks would end. It seems pretty simple to me.
Volodio@reddit
Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in 2005 and this is what led to the 7 October.
Stubbs94@reddit
Nope, they ended their civilian presence in Gaza, the occupation never ended... And you know, the rest of Palestine is also occupied, Gaza isn't the only part of the occupied Palestinian territories.
Volodio@reddit
The occupation did end. There was no Israeli military presence in Gaza.
Yes, other parts of Palestine are also occupied, but it would be hard to convince Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank based on the idea that it would stop attacks when it did not work in Gaza. There is no reason to believe it would work. Gaza was precisely the opportunity to prove to Israel that Palestinians could co-exist with a Jewish state next to them and this failed.
Stubbs94@reddit
Ah yeah, because Israel was really committed to living peacefully with the Palestinians in Gaza... That's why they destroyed all the airports and ripped up the water pipes when leaving...
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Not lying about these things might make your position a little bit more respectable. The ones who ripped up the water pipes were Palestinians, years later, to make rockets. The airport was bombed years later, too, as it’s infrastructure was used for rocket assembly and launch.
Gaza was left to Palestinians with all infrastructure fully intact, in the hope that it will jump start Gazas economy. Instead, certain political forces supporting the Palestinian independence - people like you - saw it as just the first step in liberation of „all Palestine“ from the river to the sea, and Gaza was to be a bridgehead for that.
The rest followed.
redelastic@reddit
So, why does Israel still control the water and electricity in Gaza, if they really, really want the people there to be independent?
It's almost as if that isn't what Israel wants, as many reports about the blockade by the world's leading human rights groups show.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
They control it because they supply it. Duh.
redelastic@reddit
Ah, I see. And why does Israel only provide a few hours of electricity a day and shut it down regularly?
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Why they do it NOW is irrelevant. They supplied water and electricity 24/7 until very recently.
France and UK supply a significant part of electricity that Ireland consumes, is Ireland now under French occupation as well?
And maybe, just maybe, if whoever controlled Gaza in 2005 spent the money of their political supporters on a new power plant and a desalination facility instead of on rockets to pelt Israel with, then Gazans would control their own power and water. But after Hamas came to power in 2005, they weren’t interested in well-being of Gazans.
Ala117@reddit
israel would destroy it and say "khamas".
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Sure, buddy. Whatever lets you sleep at night.
Ala117@reddit
Truth usually does help me sleep at night, good you acknowledge that.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
If you insist on selling speculation as truth, remind me to not by anything from you, ever.
Ala117@reddit
Ftfy
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
For a _very_ loose definition of "truth".
Basically, whatever you feel like.
Ala117@reddit
Sorry dude, i don't know how you define truth nor do i care to. Look at how israel is "allowing" Palestinian to have any future in the west bank.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Look at how, every time there was a chance to a final peaceful resolution, someone torpedoed it - and more often than not, it was someone on the Palestinian side, cheered on by people like you.
Ala117@reddit
Ftfy.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Sure, Yassir Arafat was certainly an Israeli agent.
And you seem to be a big fan of yo momma jokes.
Ala117@reddit
Ftfy
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
If you say so... whatever you come up with is the absolute and unvarnished truth. At least until you get into adulthood and learn that the world is a pretty complex thing.
Until then, bye.
Ala117@reddit
Yeah you do that mr "im 14 years old and i'm deep because i say terrorizing palestinians is complex".
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Do you have anything to offer beyond "no, you"?
Ala117@reddit
Apparently you don't.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
No, u
Ala117@reddit
Thought so.
redelastic@reddit
You've already lied in your earlier comments. Why would anyone trust you?
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
So basically, calling out your bullshit claims = lying.
Go bother someone else, mate.
redelastic@reddit
You made false claims which I debunked with facts.
I linked to this report by one of the world's leading humanitarian organisations about electricity shortages during the Gaza blockade.
This report confirmed that:
So, you're definitely wrong.
Now, whether you intentionally lied is the question - I think you did.
redelastic@reddit
You are lying.
Israel has regularly shut off electricity since the blockade began almost two decades ago and provided only a few hours a day.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
OK, TIL.
However, as it looks, nobody "destroyed the electricity supply". The Gaza population doubled from 2005 to 2025 (1,1 to 2,1 Mio) and their power consumption did the same while the existing Gaza power plant and agreed power supply contingents with Egypt and Israel were sufficient for the population of 2005. The blockade definitely effected fuel supplies for the power plant but nobody destroyed it (at least not before the current war started, no idea whether Israelis bombed it).
Gaza: total population 2050| Statista
The point is that no, Israel is not occupying Gaza,. It does occupy West Bank. Gaza was subject to blockade but not occupation. The blockade aimed at preventing various organizations within Gaza from building weapons that were to be used against Israel.
I am not even out to defend everything Israel is doing, but the hypocrisy is insane: you have an organisation that is, according to its own charter, at total war with Israel, which is effectively the government of Gaza and which maintains demonstrations of hostility sufficient to keep the war "hot". In the end, it IS a de facto souvereign country at war with Israel. And yet somehow Israel is supposed to supply fuel and electricity to the country they are at war with? What logic is that? This is true for the actually occupied areas like West Bank - there, the occupier is required by international laws to supply the occupied population with food, electricity and water or at least not interfere with population being supplied (which, more or less, is the case). Gaza, on the other hand is NOT occupied (or rather, it is NOW, partially) - and at war. Particularly at war they simply cannot win and not even stalemate.
Observe how Hamas is refusing to say anything about "peace". Its always "ceasefire" for this or that period. What is supposed to happen at the end of this period? Another 10/7? Another "lawn mowing"? Or... what exactly?
redelastic@reddit
You made a false statement and were proven wrong. Maybe just acknowledge that rather than try to deny the facts and defending the indefensible.
I never referred to Israel destroying the electricity supply, I said it was limited by Israel throughout the blockade. There are dozens of other punitive measures as part of the blockade - can provide more reports detailing these.
The International Court of Justice says it is illegally occupied. I'll believe the highest court in the world over someone who has already made false statements.
Your argument about Israel blocking aid, fuel, medicine etc to Gaza is completely wrong. According to international law, Israel is committing war crimes.
Israel cut off all aid for nearly three months. Using starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime. That's why it is listed on the ICC arrest warrant for Israel's leaders.
Why are you defending genocide and crimes against humanity? What is wrong with you?
Why are you blaming Hamas for collapsing the ceasefire negotiations when Israel collapsed them. Do you not have google?
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
>The International Court of Justice says it is illegally occupied. I'll believe the highest court in the world over someone who has already made false statements.
If the International court of Justice (which is NOT "the highest court in the world" as there is no such thing) defines Blue as Red, I am not going to start describing blue things as red. Sorry. Words have meanings. The word "occupation" has a commonly understood meaning too and Gaza situation between 2005 and 2023 is not it. West Bank is occupied by Israel. Gaza was not occupied, but it was blockaded, to different degrees. By now, large parts of Gaza are occupied too, of course.
You are deliberately confusing events prior to Hamas attacking Israel and the events after that, to provide post facto justification to Hamas actions.
>According to international law, Israel is committing war crimes.
This is correct. However, Israel was not committing war crimes prior to Hamas attack. It was particularly not committing war crimes as Hamas, after winning election in Gaza in 2005, directed that territory's resources at attacking Israel. While it does not justify war crimes, saturation bombing, or starvation blockade, it does justify Israeli desire to remove Hamas as organisation from governing role in Gaza and reduction of its offensive capability. Just not while killing huge numbers of civilians in the process.
>Why are you defending genocide and crimes against humanity?
Show me where I do that.
>What is wrong with you? Apart from most of what you say
Stating simple facts, like that power consumption is usually proportional to the population numbers, is apparently wrong and a justification of genocide. What is wrong with you?
>Why are you blaming Hamas for collapsing the ceasefire negotiations when Israel collapsed them. Do you not have google?
No, I just do not google selectively, only for things supporting my preferred version of events. At least I am trying not to. And facts are, the damn ceasefire negotiations collapsed at least twice if not three times after 10/7, and only in one case by Israel. I guess you never cared to learn about the history of the place before 10/7 - things liek Oslo Accords, various intifadas etc.
My question was however not "who torpedoed the most recent negotiations with Hamas" but "what is supposed to come afterwards if the negotiations are not collapsed by one or the other party". Hamas offers a 2 year or 5 year ceasefire. What is supposed to happen after these 2 or 5 years? War again?
redelastic@reddit
Man, you just love being wrong.
I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you as you are consistently proven to make incorrect statements but won't even admit it. So, I can only conclude you are engaging entirely in bad faith.
Stop defending war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Source please.
Ideally, not just someone complaining. I am sure there are public data like for any other electrical grid.
redelastic@reddit
I've linked to a report by ICRC. There are multiple reports that debunk your mistruths.
Volodio@reddit
I am not saying Israel at the time was committed to it, you are moving the goalposts, but nonetheless it was an opportunity for Palestinians to prove they could want peace and thus propel the peace faction in Israel.
Anyway, the point is that ending the occupation is unlikely to result in peace as was proven with Gaza. The occupation was ended, yet there was more violence from unoccupied Gaza than from occupied West Bank, despite the West Bank being much larger both in size and population. If Israel withdrew from the West Bank, Palestinians would likely continue to attack it until there is no Jew left in the region.
Stubbs94@reddit
The occupation didn't end, that's the point. Israel has always retained military control over the territory. Gaza was occupied before October 2023. The IDF had complete surveillance and military control over the air, sea and land borders of the region.
Volodio@reddit
Israel did not have control over the border between Gaza and Egypt. It would not even be an occupation if you controlled the border of a country. It is also entirely normal for a country to militarily control its own border.
Stubbs94@reddit
Yes it did, anything entering Gaza from Egypt had to go throw Israeli border control even before the genocide.
Volodio@reddit
Which was the result of an accord between Israel and Egypt. Egypt controlled the border and chose to allow Israeli to check what was going in. Egypt also chose not to check too much for tunnels which allowed Hamas to use them to supply itself. Because Egypt controlled the border and not Israel. If Israel had controlled the border, Hamas would not have been strong enough to do the 7 October attack.
Stubbs94@reddit
Wait until you hear about the partisans in nazi occupied Europe still having weapons even though they were occupied too. Or how the republicans in the North of Ireland managed to get weapons from Libya in even though the entire border was controlled by the Brits. Resistance groups will also find a way to get armed mate, it doesn't disprove the occupation. Fucking hell.
Volodio@reddit
There is obviously a difference between small arms and heavy weapons including rockets and mortars. Yes, even if the entire border was occupied, Hamas would still likely gain access to some small arms, but not to more sophisticated systems.
Hamas getting armed is not supposed to disprove the occupation. The fact that Gaza was not occupied is disproving the occupation claim. You are the one skirting over this by claiming somehow controlling a part of the border (because again Israel did not control the Egypt-Gaza border) is an occupation, which it is not. Otherwise we could say Canada is occupied by the US.
Stubbs94@reddit
The ICJ concluded last year that the occupation never ended. I am inclined to believe them over someone who is an uncritical supporter of the occupation.
AsinusRex@reddit
Show us the ruling.
ThisPICAintFREE@reddit
Not like you’ll read the article, but here
AsinusRex@reddit
"The court's advisory opinion is not legally binding but still carries significant political weight."
A political opinion by a UN body, they couldn't do proper judgement because it would fall on its face
ThisPICAintFREE@reddit
Yeah the ruling being non-binding has no weight over legality, are you simple?
AsinusRex@reddit
Are you?
redelastic@reddit
"And so are you" is really an admission your argument has failed.
AsinusRex@reddit
When you sober up read it again
redelastic@reddit
No need. Your argument failed.
redelastic@reddit
I mean, Israel thinks it owns Palestinian land because God told them, and you think that's legit.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
The court advises on what is international law.
If the court says Gaza is occupied, then it is considered occupied under international law.
"Not legally binding" means it's not actionable.
Volodio@reddit
Hamas obviously also had control over its own side of the border.
You are obviously inclined to believe people who already agree with you. I don't think there is much point in the discussion anymore if you want to relinquish your ability to form a developed opinion in order to choose an authoritative figure to follow and choose it simply based on whether it agrees with your innate beliefs.
Have a good day, mate.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Is your position really "The UN and the ICJ are wrong, and you know better than they do?"
redelastic@reddit
Yes, he thinks he knows better than the UN and ICJ. Laughable arrogance.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Convenient, isn’t it?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
On the one hand you say that Israel did not have control over the border between Gaza and Egypt, then you admit that they did and had veto power over everything. Which one was it?
It's kind of irrelevant, because the ICJ in 2024 declared that Gaza was still occupied.
Volodio@reddit
I never admitted that they did. Israel never had control over the border between Gaza and Egypt prior to the war. They could only check what was going in through normal means. This is not control. If they had actually controlled the border, they could have halted the tunnel expansion and prevented Hamas from supplying itself through the tunnels.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Do you really believe that there is no border control because there is smuggling? What a peculiar view.
Volodio@reddit
No, it is not what I said.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
That is exactly what you said.
Volodio@reddit
No. Please get a grip and try to be civil. If you just want to lie to make a strawman of what I say, there is no point having a discussion.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
What I said wasn’t uncivil. Your point everyone, including the UN and ICJ, are wrong because Israel had veto power over the border but that doesn’t mean control over it. What can I say - it’s an Israeli talking point that self-serving.
Volodio@reddit
You lied about what I said in order to make a strawman. It was not only uncivil but also unconstructive and a waste of everyone's time.
Yes, I think the UN and the ICJ are wrong, just like they are wrong on many things in the Israeli-Arab conflicts (especially the UN which has shown to be clearly biased toward the Arabs, going as far as having some of its employees participating in the 7 October and holding some of the hostages). I do not think the UN and the ICJ are everyone.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Again, I didn’t lie. It’s not a strawman. You are saying that Israel can deny anyone or anything entry or exit. To me, that is obviously control. You are disputing that on the basis of Hamas smuggling stuff. It doesn’t make sense. They are two different things.
The worst part of your point is that there were tunnels under the border when Israel still had settlements in Gaza. It completely invalidates your point.
Volodio@reddit
This is exactly what a strawman is. You reinterpret what I said in order to make a better argument against it. You did it again in this very comment and you admit yourself that you jumped ahead with a premise that was obvious only to you and that, if we are being frank, you knew I was not agreeing with.
Israel obtained from Egypt the ability to check the content of what was going legally through the border. But Israel did not have a military presence over the border, it did not have unilateral power over one side of the border, it did not have administrative control over the border, it did not have the ability to stop smuggling over the border, it only had the ability to check the content of the cargos because Egypt agreed to it. This is not control. Again, Egypt controlled its own border with Gaza, not Israel.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
And, again, Israel had veto power over every person and all goods from entering or leaving Gaza. It also had complete access to documentation and logs, cameras to look at everything. And no cargo can go to or from Gaza via Egypt - Israel has banned that avenue for cargo transport. They could even compel Egypt to take certain actions. What additional control could Israel have had over and above this?
redelastic@reddit
Apparently this guy is more of an expert on it than the International Court of Justice, who declared all of Palestine as being illegally occupied, including Gaza.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Firstly, Ariel Sharon had no intention of fostering peace when he pulled Israel out of Gaza. He also implemented a brutal blockade to strangle Gaza's economy. You are saying that Palestinians in Gaza should have been peaceful, quiet, docile people while Israel starved and attacked them.
The Palestinians in the West Bank were much less violent than the Palestinians in Gaza, and they got ethnic cleansing and mass murder, with settlements doubling and now well on their way to doubling again.
Isn't the real message that it doesn't matter if Palestinians are peaceful or violent, Israel will only use violence on them?
Volodio@reddit
Sharon imposed the blockade to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons and using them for attacks in Israel itself, following terrorist attacks where Hamas did exactly that from Gaza. The Palestinians never starved and the attacks were started by Hamas. Yes, the Palestinians should have stopped their attacks and become peaceful in order to prove to Israel that they could have a peaceful partner.
There was also violence in the West Bank, on both sides, but it never reached the level of ethnic cleansing and mass murder. You are exaggerating. It also never reached the level of violence as Gaza so there is a clear correlation where the more violent the Palestinians are the more violent is the Israeli reaction.
The Palestinians in the West Bank also suffered from des-unity, un-decisiveness and a leadership that was not ready for peace. Because there were peace proposals for them which they never took up during that time. There was violence in the West Bank because the Palestinians themselves failed to provide good alternatives. The places with the less violence from the Israelis in the West Bank are also the places with the less violence from the Palestinians.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Once again, this is wrong. Sharon had no intention of peace. He shut the border down before Hamas were elected. It was all about destroying the Gaza economy. Later on he imposed a siege and called it “putting Gaza on a diet.” It is despicable and the fact that most Zionists still support it is also despicable.
I notice in all this you only demand non-violence from Palestinians. Israelis can be as violent as they wish and they get no criticism from you. Why do you support Israeli violence so wholeheartedly?
In the West Bank there were several incidents of mass murder buff soldiers, and whole villages were destroyed and areas cleared. It’s classic ethnic cleansing. Combine that with the apartheid in the West Bank and things there were very grim. Your support for that, and demand that only Palestinians have to be non-violent, and they have to be completely nonviolent or Israeli violence is justified, paints you as rather biased.
The. You move on to blaming the Palestinians in the West Bank for Israeli violence. Have you never considered that Israelis were violent because they wanted to be, because that was how they have historically achieved their goals?
Volodio@reddit
Yes, Sharon had no intention of peace, I never claimed otherwise, but the shutting of the border was done because of terrorist attacks by Hamas (which was present in Gaza before the elections btw). But it is derailing the discussion. The point is this: the Palestinians had a unoccupied independent territory which they used to do more attacks against Israel than anything they did from occupied territory. Therefore, it is obvious to Israelis that the idea of ending the occupation would not result in less violence but more of it.
The discussion is about ending the violence from the Palestinians, not about ending the violence from the Israelis. I do not support or criticize anything, I simply stay in the bounds of the topic we are discussing. I notice you have a tendency to derail to other topics but it is not advisable if we wish to have an in-depth discussion about the topics at hand. Unless you are not interested in this specific topic and simply wish to express your opinion without debating it about the general conflict. In which case I am not interested.
Again, there is no mass murder, ethnic cleansing or apartheid. Simply repeating it with more exaggerated words does not make it happen.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
So your entire goal is find ways to stop Palestinian violence without addressing the root causes of it? You want Palestinian violence to stop but Israeli violence to continue? And you don’t want to admit that the situation in the West Bank amounts to apartheid and there are frequent instances of mass murder and ethnic cleansing there?
It you can’t be honest and can’t accept a discussion of all parties to the conflict then there’s nothing to talk about.
Volodio@reddit
Again, and this is my whole point, the fact that the 7 October happened from Gaza which was not subject to settlers or military occupation and was ruling itself independently, points that the root causes of the Palestinian violence has nothing to do with Israeli policy regarding the occupied territories. Therefore, changing this policy would also not change the Palestinian violence from Gaza.
I made this point clear in my first comment so I wished you had paid better attention to it because you just wasted both our times by circling back to my initial point.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
My point is that Gaza was and is still occupied and oppressed by Israel. You can reject all the international forums you like and say everyone is biased against poor little Israel, but honestly, have you never considered yourself and Israel to be in the wrong?
Israel starved Gaza for two decades and has controlled and besieged it for as long. Furthermore Israel brutalises the Palestinians in the West Bank, something you appear to both deny and approve of. Do you really feel it’s unfair to hit back at the people who want Palestinians to starve, be brutalised and suffer?
Volodio@reddit
Yes, I feel like the violence of the 7 October would have been unfair even if it had been targeted at people who wanted to make the Palestinians suffer. But it was not even the case, the people mutilated, tortured, raped and murdered during the 7 October were largely civilians from the left, who were friendly with Palestinians, supported a two-state solution, had regular contacts with them and even helped them quite directly.
But this illustrates that the discussion between us is impossible and I will not be continuing any further.
I believe the 7 October showed that Israel cannot simply end its occupation and hope the war would stop, you believe the 7 October was justified. There is no point in having a discussion when our premises are so far apart.
Have a good day.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
You’re attributing views to me that I don’t hold, so it’s good that we end the conversation here.
redelastic@reddit
False. The ICJ considers all of Palestine to be illegally occupied - including Gaza.
The fact that the two-decade blockade by Israel controls Gaza's water, electricity, freedom of movement, food, medicine, airspace, maritime border etc is a factor in this.
The purpose of the blockade was also to crush the economy in Gaza - senior Israeli politicians have openly admitted this.
If an economy were successful, the people are closer to self-determination and a Palestinian state - Israel will suppress this at all costs. Hence it also supported the rise of Hamas to create division in the Palestinian movement. Again, this is all a matter of record by Israeli politicians.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
For people like you, Tel Aviv is also occupied Palästina that needs to be liberated, I guess.
Ala117@reddit
I've heard one of your fellow zionists say that all countries surrounding israel were israel.
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Quick, rewrite the history books! Some rando said something on TikTok!
Decent_Cheesecake_29@reddit
“Gaza wasn’t under occupation, it was just under a total blockade to ensure nothing dangerous could be imported like wedding dresses or cookies and make sure the Palestinian stuck to their diet by limiting the amount of calories they could import. Israel’s were so kind, that they would regularly mow the lawn for Palestinians by going in and killing people with regular frequency.”
Volodio@reddit
The blockade was implemented following terrorist attacks from Hamas. The Gazans were not limited in the amount of calories they could import. The civilian society still worked despite the blockade and there were still plenty of cars, hotels, entertainment areas, stores, etc.
Ala117@reddit
Ftfy
callmejellydog@reddit
Coz it has strength? Why would it capitulate?
Stubbs94@reddit
Nazi Germany had strength too... So did Apartheid South Africa.
callmejellydog@reddit
Someone had a buttered croissant and I didn’t. Not sure how this is useful?
Stubbs94@reddit
Israel and Nazi Germany operate on the similar ideologies. Nazi Germany collapsed, so will Israel. You can't run a nation based on supremacy and hate for this long.
callmejellydog@reddit
Deluded
redelastic@reddit
Deluded to support genocide. Probably a Rangers supporter.
callmejellydog@reddit
I don’t like football, or rats.
AsinusRex@reddit
It is well known that Jews in Nazi Germany had representation in the Reichstag, judges in the Reichsgericht and generals in the Wehrmacht. /s
GothicGolem29@reddit
Nah Hamas would still attack to free terrorists from Prison(actual terrorists like how Sinwar got released in a deal a while ago.)
ImprovementBig523@reddit
😭😭😭🤣🤣🤣
Abject-Investment-42@reddit
Would the attacks really end?
College_Throwaway002@reddit
That was what Hamas agreed to as the basis for Phase 2 negotiations... which Israel backed out of. If the hostages don't get released by agreement through a safety corridor, and they die on the way to Israel, Hamas just gets blamed for their deaths. And if Israel doesn't agree to stop the attacks in exchange for the hostages, then Hamas basically loses all of its leverage for nothing.
Israel doesn't seek to negotiate in good-faith. Expecting an unconditional surrender of a terror group where their whole thing is martyrdom is pretty stupid.
Leather-Paramedic-10@reddit (OP)
Doesn't Israel continually take Palestinian land and hold thousands of Palestinians as "prisioners" without trial? It seems like that is fueling the conflict.
iHachersk@reddit
Ah yes because every Palestinian has control over the release of hostages
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Source Code | Stats
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.