Morch

Nope. That's your opinion.

Ever thought that not all nonsense, antisemitic, flaming comments by resident trolls need to be fully addressed?

If of fighting age, they were born in Lebanon. If of Palestinians origins, they are denied citizenship and associated rights.

Again, you do not make a reasoned argument, but an emotive one. I'm addressing realistic options, not your fantasy ones. The situation back then and now is not the same, conditions are different, reality is different, things changed. Your same-same argument does not apply. As for 'wish to return' - where to? How? How would this even begin to work? How would such an influx of basically hostile population with different culture, language and religion promote a stable situation, let alone peace? You are not interested in anything much but winning silly arguments. You cannot address reality, facts or the like.

All the Palestinian casualty reports from Gaza originate from the Palestinian Ministry of Health there, which is controlled by Hamas. Most of the major media outlets mention this in their reports. So no, it is not 'verified'. A whole lot of people have been killed. Hamas tries to package them all as civilian casualties. This is not true. You are repeating Hamas propaganda.

Them Freudian slips....Thanks. You clumsily tried to turn my argument against my, and failed. As usual. I did not and do not 'ignore the plight' as you claimed - that's another lie from your lie factory. I actually addressed the issue of their future.

No, that would be you twisting things again. I'm not that interested in your opinion that Israel should not exist and so on. Same for your questioning of Jews right to the land and so on. They are pointless. What I am addressing is a current situation and the question you raised in relation to it. Realistically, what I posted is where it's at. There will be no mass return of Palestinians to Israel, even if you feel strongly about it, and even if you feel it's unjust.

Again, you don't seem to understand what 'war crimes' are, how they are decided, and what legalities actually imply. All you have are interpretations based on your biased views and beliefs. That's not a solid ground when trying for a legal argument.

It was mentioned in some of the earlier reports that Hamas tried to lure IDF soldiers to ambushes by calling out in Hebrew. Something similar was in evidence during the 7/10 attack where they tried to convince civilians to open up claiming they were IDF.

They could be offered a path to a citizenship by their current host countries, or others. Same as many refugees elsewhere. Considering many of them live for a long time in their host countries, assimilation should be less of a problem. If and when there's a Palestinian State - it may choose to allow all of them back to it's borders, grant them citizenship and all the rest. Jews that formerly lived in Arab countries and fled/left post 1948 faced a similar situation.

Are you for real? The Independent usual line is anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. Many other media outlets, channels and venues are the same. So who controls the Independent's narrative, then? I've no idea what your last line was supposed to mean.

That is not exactly correct. There were Thais killed by Gazan mobs as well.

@thaibeachlovers Ambulances, hospitals and schools lose their protected status if abused by combatants. Already discussed on numerous posts and topics. There is no unconditional protection as you imply. Hamas has all the fuel the the Gaza Strip needs, and then some. It simply stole it from the civilians, aid groups and hospitals. This too was discussed on many discussions by now.

Link to what? This was all linked, discussed and debated on when it took place - way back in the topic. That you do not bother reading topics is already established.

With coffee? That's a crime against humanity right there.

You are painting things in a misleading way on two counts: (a) Civilians were not deliberately told to evacuate to safe zones, and then attacked there. There was no 'trap' as I think you tried to imply. Hamas, by the way, does fire mortars and launches rockets from said areas, or in near proximity to them. (b) The initial Hamas attack on 7/10 was carried out by Hamas men. There were mobs on Gazans following on their trail - looting, killing, raping and whatnot. Some of the more horrific stuff was done by these people. Initially Hamas leaders even tried to place all the blame for the atrocities on these people - but as this didn't float, and not well received - they dropped it in favor of all out denials. Also, Hamas offered money for any hostages brought from Israel and delivered to his hands - this was aimed at these people. So obviously, not all of the people in the Gaza Strip partook in this, but saying it was only Hamas is not true.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I haven't said anything about antisemites, in this regard. That's something you injected to the exchange. And 'many people' is a nothing comment.

Got to love those one liner disclaimers about Hamas before the expected anti-Israeli rhetoric is spewed. Like ticking that box is supposed to make the poster views count as 'balanced' or something. So, to be clear - the post doesn't actually address the question replied to, but rather (after a long tirade), goes on to list what poster thinks are 'war crimes' committed by Israel. No actual proof of such, no official statements by relevant bodies, no investigation and not even much evidence of poster understanding the legalities involved. Like the list of 'war crimes', which features in many posts on here, the tirade on offer is just a lengthy version of the same old battered opinions, and I-believe stuff. Practically every single 'point' was already addressed multiple times on these topics. This includes all them sneaky false 'facts', assertions, and the rest appearing in the rant. And as usual, low dosage of reality when it comes to alternative actions, possible solutions and even might-have-been comments. Same old.

Being consistent doesn't make views correct, factual or right.

the 19,000 dead figure includes Hamas men, Gazans killed by misfired Palestinian rockets, and naturally occurring deaths (as when there's no war on). Lumping them all together and packaging it the way you do is basically repeating Hamas propaganda. Civilians get killed in wars all the time - that does not necessarily imply a 'war crime'. Your claim that the hope is that this war will drive the rest of the population out - that's something you claim, not a fact, nor a policy that I'm aware of.

I think you have nothing.

All two-state solutions that were negotiated involved at least some measure of Israel illegal settlements being evacuated. A general 'right of return' to Israel's territory was never in the cards and is not a realistic demand. This was acknowledged even by Abbas. There was talk about a very limited return of either elderly persons or to specific places where it could be applied. Again, you make them statements like you know what you're talking about, or like they are facts.

Using such terms as 'colonial, 'genocide' and all the rest of the usual jargon doesn't actually mean a whole lot. It's just hot air. Chris Hedges biased views on Israel are nothing new.