Saudi Arabian ambassador to the UK said to the BBC on Tuesday that his country is interested in normalization with Israel after the war, with one condition - the creation of a Palestinian State.
Incredibly ironic that you frame militants who hide in tunnels because that’s the only way they can avoid being wiped out as a legitimate existential threat to the 19th most powerful military of the world.
Hamas advocates for genocide, (citation above,) there’s no reason they couldn’t acquire the means of committing genocide against Jews again if not deposed.
Even if they do not represent an existential threat to the nation of Israel, they are definitely a threat to Israeli civilians, as demonstrated on Oct 7. This alone justifies reprisals and restrictions.
They go to beach and have houses so everything is fine. Disgusting framing once again. I’m sure people of the Warsaw ghetto also had a couple of nice spots as well.
Present them.
They’ve both had movement limited and caloric intake rationed and access to clean water limited as well.
What did Hamas think would happen when they attacked a nation they are dependent upon for basic supplies? Should Israel keep supply lines open to a nation that is currently at war with them? Hamas, the government of Gaza, is supposed to be responsible for its people’s well-being, not Israel, who is defending against them. Yet instead, they use them as human shields and hide in civilian structures.
What really makes it hard to find sympathy is that 74% of Palestinians approve of Hamas even after Oct 7 and Israel’s reprisals. It appears this is what they want, as baffling as it seems to me. Outrage alone will not win this war for them. Some hard truths need to be faced.
Hamas had virtually less than 2% support around 40 years after the nakba and it’s gained support consistently at junctions where Palestinians felt that they had no other means of achieving self-determination than through violence
This would be reasonable if they had more than a snowball’s chance in hell of defeating Israel militarily. Today this appears to be a people who refuse to acknowledge their situation, poking the bear over and over again, then screaming about how terrible and unfair it is when they get predictably mauled yet again.
If you don’t like the designation then bring it up with scholars of the subject who believe it to be the case.
Cool, bring up your arguments to scholars who disagree with this designation, of whom there are many.
I’m not saying the Israeli state does not exist. I’m saying it is the only state that exists at the moment. Killings having happened before the expulsion of ~70% of the population from their homes does not justify the perpetual subjugation of a people.
Violence against them does in fact justify taking actions to prevent further violence. That’s the nature of this conflict. For Israel, it’s not about subjugation, it’s about safety. The “subjugation” will end when safety is achieved. Normal nations surrender when they lose wars, which is why the wars end.
the percentage itself is irrelevant as that does not give them the right to claim more land through violence
That’s not what justified annexation, the violence against them and the failed wars declared against them did that. Even with the Arab Nationalist violence in Mandatory Palestine, were war never declared they’d have the '48 borders, which would be a significant improvement over their present situation.
Hamas’ original charter was written by 5 people at a time when they did not have much popular support and was since revised in 2017 to remove mentions of being against jews and replace it with zionists instead (again not to say that they are “moderates” but for accuracy).
I don’t find their revisions to be compelling, as this war was caused by a genocidal attack, (intended to destroy Jews in whole or in part.) Statements by Hamas leadership also make their intentions clear.
You talk about a miniscule GDP but why do you think that is the case? Why do you think they do not have the means of improving their conditions?
Constant and popular violence, belligerence, and intifada.
Israel has prevent action that would expand water access and has overdrawn from the aquifer that provides clean water to Gaza. The list of such actions goes on and on.
And lastly your wishes that the perpetrators are brought to justice are unfortunately pointless as long as occupation persists.
Military occupation and the rule of law being applied fairly are not mutually exclusive. Israel can certainly do better in this regard but is is certainly possible.
Yes, breaches of said Oslo accords water agreements… I don’t know why I bother arguing with wikipedia links and gross misrepresentations of facts. I know that long after occupation ends you will claim to never have supported such atrocities.
You cannot claim it’s about safety and rule of law when it’s only for one ethnoreligious group at the expense of another’s ability of self-determination. If you believe that Jewish people are some magical chosen people who are above everyone else and especially above those savage, terroristic Muslims then that world view makes sense but then you’re a religious fundamentalist. There is no self-defense under occupation by definition as they are and continue to be the perpetual aggressor under international law.
Present them.
What did Hamas think would happen when they attacked a nation they are dependent upon for basic supplies? Should Israel keep supply lines open to a nation that is currently at war with them? Hamas, the government of Gaza, is supposed to be responsible for its people’s well-being, not Israel, who is defending against them. Yet instead, they use them as human shields and hide in civilian structures.
What really makes it hard to find sympathy is that 74% of Palestinians approve of Hamas even after Oct 7 and Israel’s reprisals. It appears this is what they want, as baffling as it seems to me. Outrage alone will not win this war for them. Some hard truths need to be faced.
This would be reasonable if they had more than a snowball’s chance in hell of defeating Israel militarily. Today this appears to be a people who refuse to acknowledge their situation, poking the bear over and over again, then screaming about how terrible and unfair it is when they get predictably mauled yet again.
Cool, bring up your arguments to scholars who disagree with this designation, of whom there are many.
Violence against them does in fact justify taking actions to prevent further violence. That’s the nature of this conflict. For Israel, it’s not about subjugation, it’s about safety. The “subjugation” will end when safety is achieved. Normal nations surrender when they lose wars, which is why the wars end.
That’s not what justified annexation, the violence against them and the failed wars declared against them did that. Even with the Arab Nationalist violence in Mandatory Palestine, were war never declared they’d have the '48 borders, which would be a significant improvement over their present situation.
I don’t find their revisions to be compelling, as this war was caused by a genocidal attack, (intended to destroy Jews in whole or in part.) Statements by Hamas leadership also make their intentions clear.
Constant and popular violence, belligerence, and intifada.
I believe Palestine agreed to said water rights in the Oslo accords.
Military occupation and the rule of law being applied fairly are not mutually exclusive. Israel can certainly do better in this regard but is is certainly possible.
Yes, breaches of said Oslo accords water agreements… I don’t know why I bother arguing with wikipedia links and gross misrepresentations of facts. I know that long after occupation ends you will claim to never have supported such atrocities.
You cannot claim it’s about safety and rule of law when it’s only for one ethnoreligious group at the expense of another’s ability of self-determination. If you believe that Jewish people are some magical chosen people who are above everyone else and especially above those savage, terroristic Muslims then that world view makes sense but then you’re a religious fundamentalist. There is no self-defense under occupation by definition as they are and continue to be the perpetual aggressor under international law.