ozimoron

This is a recurrent theme with you. You can't seem to accept that anyone might not support either side. I don't understand that. I have tried to explain it to you but you persist in labeling people as anti Israeli because they support Palestinian rights. If they say they condemn both sides, you revert to this same fallback position rather than engaging constructively on the issues. Some of us find Israel's conduct in pursuing justice (or not pursing justice) for Hamas' crimes as reprehensible. in the extreme. For some of us it is the worst humanitarian crime of this century. But you won't attempt to see any of that. It isn't a personal thing. You know I support lgbt rights and rail against racism. For me it's entirely consist to call out Israel for their war crimes. Furthermore, I have support in doing so. Israel is on trial for genocide and the bulk of the justices on the ICJ found that they have a case to answer. It will take years before a decision is handed down but in the meantime, many of us just want the killing to stop. Now. If Hamas continue terrorist attacks in the future and I'm sure they will then that should be dealt with when it happens and through international pressure, sanctions and the judicial mechanism setup for that purpose, not by indiscriminate bombing and forcibly removing all Palestinians from Gaza and then leveling their homes and infrastructure as an act of retribution and ethnic cleansing. You, and others have been challenged numerous times on your position in regard to that but consistently refuse to state your position. That I find to be unacceptable public behaviour.

I provided the links and the quotes from those links which proves that it was an official policy to tolerate attacks by Hamas and even encouraged by continued assistance with funding from Qatar. It was a quid quo pro for denying the Palestinian Authority a path to being a representative authority. Crystal clear.

I provided links above which inescapably lead to that conclusion with no other possible logical rationale.

It is an inescapable conclusion from the fact that there was a policy of tolerating the attacks and believing that they would be limited in nature while continuing to facilitate financial support. It's worth noting that Shin Bet opposed that support. edit: no further replies from me today, I have work to do.

It was described as a "policy" of tolerating the attacks. Why then did Netanyahu continue to allow financial support for Hamas? It was part of the calculus. It's also clear that Israel was warned prior to the attack that such an attack might occur and indeed was imminent but they ignored it.

I told you it was previously linked. Why do you think I know that? One thing is clear: The concept of indirectly strengthening Hamas — while tolerating sporadic attacks and minor military operations every few years — went up in smoke Saturday. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ But officials believed that only a limited attack would take place, according to the report. https://news.yahoo.com/live-updates-day-10-latest-050822620.html

Comprehending that Hamas had a motivation is not condoning or excusing them. Stop your personal attacks.

Are you denying this was alleged by an Israeli publication?

Again, you are trying to deflect from the fact they had a motivation or discuss what that was and you attack me as a means to do so. I do not excuse Hamas and you know it.

Why do you refuse to countenance that Hamas had a motivation for the attack?

A previously linked article in an Israeli newspaper said exactly that. Netanyahu wanted Hamas to attack so that he could justify a crackdown and further anti Hamas sentiment in the wider world. His miscalculation was the scale of the attack. His support of Hamas was designed to achieve that goal.

I didn't suggest that the attack was justified in any way. You swerved the question of why the war started.

That doesn't address the fundamental question of why this latest war started.

You didn't respond to my question whether the illegal settlements were a provocation for Hamas. I assume you want to push this narrative that Hamas had no provocation for the attack? That Hamas weren't in existence then is not an argument that the Nakba was not a a raison de etre for their formation. Again, a non sequitur.

Israel did not declare war. They said they were in a state of war. To declare war would have been to trigger the Geneva convention.

The war started with the Nakba in 1948. A key Hamas demand is the right of return of Palestinian refugees. The Nakba was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Thanks for agreeing that the West Bank is Palestinian land. Would you also agree that the illegal settlements were a provocation for Hamas? And why hasn't it been a question ever since the settlements started? Why is it only a question for the future?

It's disgusting that Bloomberg give a megaphone to this warmongering and ethnic cleansing eviction of Palestinians from Rafah. The fallacy in this argument is that removing civilians from Gaza, presumably to Egypt, would also permit Hamas moving to Egypt thereby achieving nothing other than finishing the job of removing all Palestinians from Gaza.

Interesting that neither you nor anybody else who supports Israel won't say whether or not they believe the West Bank is Palestinian land.

That's only true if you don't believe the entire west bank belongs to Palestinians.

The major points of contention include the specific boundaries of the two states (though most proposals are based on the 1967 lines), the status of Jerusalem, the Israeli settlements and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Observers have described the current situation in the whole territory, with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip, as one of de facto Israeli sovereignty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution

The negotiations call for an administration of Gaza and the west bank which does not include Hamas. Without any official status and without support from Israel Hamas would be powerless save for some outstanding extremists who would be opposed by the Palestinian police under a new administration

They are using their religion as an excuse for a land grab. All wars are about resources and land.

Then you should also suggest the the Times of Israel was defending her as well. You have made a non sequitur.

I'm not defending her, I'm saying that her claim that Hamas attacked Israel as a response to decades of Israeli oppression are on point and nothing to do with religion. This war has nothing to do with religion. It is a territorial dispute. Netanyahu was described in the Guardian article I quoted as deliberately dividing Palestinians through his support of Hamas and that he and his officials are extremists who never wanted a Palestinian state and cynically operated to prevent one.