Morch

Let me put it another way. The Gaza Strip is, generally, not a great place to live in. Palestinians living there do not have much choice about it. They cannot simply emigrate. Now, if Egypt (and/or other Arab countries) were to change their policy and allow them a path to citizenship, settlement and so on - do you still think Palestinians would turn down the offer? Apologies if it sounds callous, but a line from one of Bill Hicks's shows come to me - "What....and leave all this?". I guess some are tied to the place, and that's fine. Some will remain for the 'struggle'. But I doubt many would pass on such an offer, if it was made.

Making things up, again.

Your main point was about that Palestinian should be offered compensation. It was answered. You chose to address a related side issue mentioned instead. Your generalization is cute, but not necessarily correct or germane. There were wealthy Jews living in Arab countries and there were poor ones. Given that they had to let go of property and possessions meant that they generally arrived poor. I don't think that the Palestinian refugees were overall richer, many were poor farmers. If you want to push that 'colonial sponsors' nonsense, you'll have to find someone else to discuss this with.

Status Quo? Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Egyptians at one point incorporated the Gaza Strip as part of the UAR. They also propped up a puppet Palestinian government, then tossed it aside. Later on, with the formation of the PLO, Egypt promised to give over control of the Gaza Strip. Never happened. As for the Egyptian military rule of the Gaza Strip being benign - amusing. The main point remains - people on here go on and on about decades of Palestinians yearning for independence, freedom and sovereignty. In effect, they have exhibited less enthusiasm toward these things than could have been expected.

How does it mean a 'widening of the conflict'?

Are you idolizing the NYT now? Did you actually look at the available picture from this morning?

More loaded 'questions'. That's all you got.

I made no argument. I was pointing out that you routinely post loaded 'questions' that fit your narrative and agenda.

There's no shortage of social media clips by nutters expressing themselves directly. And of course, you copped the more relevant part of my post.... The exchange was in the context of referenced international mass protests. You made a claim. You cannot support it. Not much more to it.

I saw mention of about a couple hundred or so. Don't recall the exact figure.

You could have simply used another source. Somehow you keep picking dodgy ones. The bias would also be with regard to your analysis and interpretation. Israelis having issues with the current government is nothing new, there were anti-government mass protests for months now.

Israel is at war with Hamas. Hamas embeds itself within the civilian population it rules. The IDF does not deliberately target babies or civilian, Hamas did exactly that on its attack. Your are hardly an expert on international law, and you obviously do not understand how 'indiscriminate' is applied.

Martin, as in the former RT-host? The 9/11 'truther' one? Why would I want (or need) her to communicate what's going on in Israel? Sure, there are Israeli extremists, this was not denied. Your claim was in reference to comments made about international mass protests though.... You might be a lot of things, objective or honest don't pop to the top of the list. And please, spare the moralizing nonsense, no one believes you anyway. Not even you, probably.

I was called a lefty more than once on this forum. Hamas bad. Trump bad. Sorry about that bubble.

You keep pushing that 'plausible' bit - is that the talking point of the day? Give it a rest. Look at the pictures. That the Arab world buys into it doesn't make it true, or even 'plausible'. The rest of your rant, is just that - a rant.

This has nothing to do with what you posted earlier. Not a big surprise, just sayin'....

This is a new section on an online forum. The topic is about a current situation. You and other insisting to turn it into a nitpicking blame-slinging match about competing historical narratives is another story. No one claimed there is no context. There's such a think though as focus. And here we go again with the implied justifications for Hamas.....

You say 'plenty of people'. I say look at the parade of leaders arriving to express support for Israel. I'm pretty sure your own country is among them. Most countries in the world have relations with Israel and do not consider the IDF to be anything but a national army of a another sovereign nation. All of them wrong, and you know better? I don't think so. Deflect away all you will - suddenly facts don't matter, because it's inconvenient. It does not matter whether they were bombed, or whether burned to death by rocket fuel explosion etc. It matters who's responsible. The IDF did not go into the Gaza Strip looking for civilians to kill. Not same same.

Give up that 'genocide' nonsense. There is no 'genocide' in any meaningful way. People get killed in wars all over the world, why apply 'genocide' in this case? How come there are more Palestinian around each year if there's a 'genocide' going on? This current topic is not about solving the conflict. This current war is not about solving the conflict. It is about dealing with an immediate situation, instigated by one of the parties.

There's plenty of information and analysis available. You do not like the outcome, hence the 'we cannot know' obfuscation. Look at the pictures, appreciate the garden, wonder how the cars are largely intact, admire the masonry. Then look at pics posted about actual Israeli bombings in the Gaza Strip - mountains of rubble, torn vehicles...find the differences. It is not a 'plausible possibility' other than in your damage control mode narrative. You don't even know if there were actually 500 killed - that's the figure Hamas provided, and within an hour of the blast.

No, it is not speculation. These are reports from just after the blast. There was not much information available other than Hamas claiming it to be an Israeli attack.

There are always people speaking out about the Israeli occupation etc. That's nothing new, and nothing that started just now. Plenty of mention of UN resolutions and whatnot all over the topic. History did not, the subject matter of the topic did. Focus.

Other than in your posts and imagination, the IDF is not a terrorist organization, and is not considered such internationally - leaders of the Western world arriving to Israel to express support should give you a clue. Yes, it does matter who caused the explosion. Remember your earlier comment about truth and facts? And no, the damage control waffle you offer is not 'entirely plausible'. Same same doesn't apply.

World wide protests calling for completing the Nakba are simply not a thing. I do not recall a mass demonstration in Israel specifically focused on this, even. More deflections.

You earlier posted these clips as support for you words, ignoring that they were taken a short time after the blast, and before information was available. This was obviously intentional.