ozimoron

28 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't believe you.

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.

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

So no link with then. belief is all you have. Not good enough. It’s not about what you or me believe, it’s about providing credible links to outlandish claims that are vile

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.

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Forum rules. A claim made by you needs a link

 

Netanyahu wanted Hamas to attack so that he could justify a crackdown and further anti Hamas sentiment in the wider world.

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

6 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Liar, you have no link for that claim

 

Netanyahu wanted Hamas to attack so that he could justify a crackdown and further anti Hamas sentiment in the wider world.

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.

9 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

You made a shameful conspiracy claim that you cannot back up despite your ducking and weaving.

 

your claim:

Netanyahu wanted Hamas to attack so that he could justify a crackdown and further anti Hamas sentiment in the wider world.

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.

8 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Stop making things up.

 

First you need to provide a credible link. Saying there was one before is not a link.

 

Second they need to have some extremely convincing evidence within that link that has been accepted. I know that does not exist but you made a shameful claim. it’s now up to you to back it up.

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

4 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Conspiracy nonsense. Shameful

Are you denying this was alleged by an Israeli publication?

Just now, coolcarer said:

There you go, trying to make excuses for the terrorist attack. There are no excuses to be made for that, motivations or not. Period

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.

Just now, coolcarer said:

 liar, the war started because of the terrorist attack, said that many times. As the UN head said there was no justifying that attack. 

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

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

As long Israel occupying land, there will be attacks.

 

7. October gave Israel an golden ticket to occupying more. I would speculate it was an expected and wanted attack from Hamas.

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.  

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

You on the merry go round again ozimoron, does it not make you dizzy?

 

"It is important to also recognise the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation," he said. 

 

 

"But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas.

 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-26/un-chief-rejects-accusations-he-justified-hamas-attacks/103023040

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

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Oh……no……….. ok so it was announced……cool

 

Israel-Hamas War, war between Israel and Palestinian militants, especially Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), that began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a land, sea, and air assault on Israel from the Gaza Strip. The October 7 attack resulted in more than 1,200 deaths, primarily Israeli citizens, making it the deadliest day for Israel since its independence.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Israel-Hamas-War

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

6 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Rubbish, Hamas was not even around then. This tOpic is the Hamas/Israel war and his is the 5th War starting 7th Oct

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.

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Wrong again. Israel declared war with Hamas due to the terrorist attack. Now your claim on 5e war, where is the link?

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.

17 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

That is not a link to why the war started. Try again much harder

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

7 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

This war didn’t start because of the West Bank. It started because of Hamas in Gaza. West Bank is Palastinian land that Israel should vacate but that is an issue for the future. The present is stopping  the war after hostages are released and Hamas finished. 

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.

3 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Oh it must be correct if you say so!

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

Just now, Wobblybob said:

Reverting back to a history lesson that doesn't have an ounce of truth in it, even if it did are you using that to excuse the evil actions on 7/10....... despicable!

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

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Good luck with that as neither side wants that.

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

28 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

You appear to have not learned anything, you want a ceasefire so the terrorists can regroup and start more 7/10s and you advocate an unworkable two state solution that neither side wants.

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

Just now, WDSmart said:

I agree with most of what you said above, but this dispute does have a lot to do with religion. The extreme right-wing, nationalistic Jews in Israel think ALL the land of Israel and Palestine belong to them because it was the "Promised Land" given to them by their "God." 

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

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

I'm not defending her

 

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

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

She's a raging antisemitic, no surprise your defending her. 

 

This from the "U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council"

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.