The Children of Gaza = More than 7000 Killed.

[placnx]

33 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

You cannot possibly choose one side. Both factions are responsible for the entire situation. It would be a significant step forward if you could eliminate both Hamas and the Orthodox Jews.

Removing Hamas and Orthodox/Nationalist Jews from power would be a good start. An authentic two-state solution is necessary to end the cycle of violence. 

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, placnx said:

Removing Hamas and Orthodox/Nationalist Jews from power would be a good start. An authentic two-state solution is necessary to end the cycle of violence. 

 

   You don't know much about the subject , do you 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Alive and under a brutal illegal blockade.

 

The Hamas attack did not happen in a vacuum, to quote the UN secretary general.

So you're making excuses for October 7. Predictable. 

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, Drumbuie said:

Look at the map of Israel when it was established after WW2, then look at it today's it has encroached again and again, with violence, into Palestinian territory. The IDF destroys the olive trees that the Palestinians depend on. A huge number of Israelis are as horrified by their government's behaviour as any one watching  from beyond their borders - as one of them said to me in August, the trouble with our protesters is they're too well behaved. 

Hamas would not exist if Israel had behaved decently. 

A very disingenuous look at the history of the maps. No mention of the multiple times the Arabs attacked (especially after the UN partition) and Israel justified expansion for security in teeny tiny land against pervasive aggression. No mention of the Arab River to the Sea (the genocide chant). 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, placnx said:

There was UNGA resolution 194 which called for the implementation of international law, by which the then 750,000 Palestinians expelled from 1948 Israel could return to their homes. This was the stumbling block that lasted for years. Back in those days, the Palestinians were under Jordan's and Egypt's control. We could say that they were pawns in geopolitics. Not until 1967 could the Palestinians be visible, but their issue was subordinate to Israel's occupation of the Sinai. The Palestinians had no responsibility for the 1967 war. They were just the victims. BTW In 1967 Nasser would have backed down, but then Israel staged a surprise attack in destoying the Egyptian airforce. Tragically King Hussein got Jordan involved in response. 

 

The problem with previous peace proposals including Camp David 2000 and its aftermath was that the Palestinians were not offered a state with true sovereignty, plus there were then already 100,000 settlers, with Israel demanding the rights to territory to accomodate natural population growth.

 

Israel should be required to take back all the 700,000 settlers (including East Jerusalem). If any remained they can only be secular people who are not a threat to the peace and who will accept Palestinian nationality, living under Palestinian law.  

 

Basically you offer yet another take of the Palestinians as passive, easily manipulated, naive, and when it comes down to it, not accountable for anything. You ignore that Palestinian leadership embraced a position of rejectionism for decades, or that Palestinian took Jordanian citizenship without hesitations when offered, or that there was no serious attempt to demand freedom promised by Egypt. I've no idea what does 'not until 1867 could the Palestinians be visible' - it's a nonsense comment that doesn't mean anything much.

 

The Palestinians are victims. Sure. Nothing concerning them whatsoever got to do with their own choices. It's all someone else's (usually Israel) fault. That's basically your 'argument'. If a people cannot come together, produce the drive, the leadership or anything of what's required to become an actual nation - yeah....someone else's fault.

 

The problem with previous peace offers was that sides did not accept them. Yes, they were imperfect. But also, each one of them would have been better and easier than what can be achieved now. It's the very same thinking that led the Palestinians and their Arab sponsors to reject the partition plan. Didn't work out that well for them since.

 

As said on previous posts (even n the one you quoted), I do not think Israel's policies in the West Bank are right or wise. Somewhat different when it comes to the Gaza Strip.

[Jingthing]

46 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

You cannot possibly choose one side. Both factions are responsible for the entire situation. It would be a significant step forward if you could eliminate both Hamas and the Orthodox Jews.

Orthodox Jews are a lot more diverse in POV than you seem to realize.

I assume you're talking specifically about Israel Orthodox Jews.

Some of course are radically anti-Zionist though happily a small bizarre minority.

Yes west bank settlers are often Jewish fundamentalist extremists but lot of Orthodox Jews are more normal Israeli Zionists.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, placnx said:

Removing Hamas and Orthodox/Nationalist Jews from power would be a good start. An authentic two-state solution is necessary to end the cycle of violence. 

 

Remove them how? Annul democratic elections in Israel? A UN intervention force will (humanely, of course) dispose of Hamas?

[placnx]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It is an acceptable source on this forum. And Bennis is not a neutral commentator.

If the UN was not so obviously biased vs. Israel, there would have been no UN Watch.

Forum readers should be alerted to the bias of UN Watch. As for Phyllis Bennis, here are links about her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Bennis

https://ips-dc.org/ips-authors/phyllis-bennis/

[Morch]

1 minute ago, placnx said:

Forum readers should be alerted to the bias of UN Watch. As for Phyllis Bennis, here are links about her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Bennis

https://ips-dc.org/ips-authors/phyllis-bennis/

 

As said, it's an acceptable source on this forum. UN bias against Israel is a thing.

You want to claim Bennis is neutral, that's up to you.

 

\

[placnx]

17 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   We have been asked to stop giving history lessons and to keep on topic 

I was replying to the history lesson given by Morch. It is legitimate for Morch and me to explain the background to 10/7.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, placnx said:

Forum readers should be alerted to the bias of UN Watch. As for Phyllis Bennis, here are links about her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Bennis

https://ips-dc.org/ips-authors/phyllis-bennis/

 

   How does that effect the U,N statement ?

It was a report by the U.N , what difference does the website who posted the report make ?

The U.N released the report and a website posted that report .

What difference does it make if that website is biased ?

[placnx]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As said, it's an acceptable source on this forum. UN bias against Israel is a thing.

You want to claim Bennis is neutral, that's up to you.

 

\

UN Watch is biased, and Bennis is too. They have opinions. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, placnx said:

UN Watch is biased, and Bennis is too. They have opinions. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

Yawn.

Any chance you'll get back to topic?

[Nick Carter icp]

3 minutes ago, placnx said:

UN Watch is biased, and Bennis is too. They have opinions. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

   Are you saying that because U.N watch published the report, that means the U.N were wrong about the blockade being legal ?

   What point are you making ?

 

 

"The United Nations itself, in the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry report of 2011 concerning the Mavi Marmara incident from the previous year, found that Israel’s Gaza blockade is legal under international law."

[thaipo7]

Morch    Just like the American media.  They take the HAMAS numbers as gospel.  Israel lost 10 soldiers today trying to save children getting to HAMAS bad guys.

[placnx]

8 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Are you saying that because U.N watch published the report, that means the U.N were wrong about the blockade being legal ?

   What point are you making ?

 

 

"The United Nations itself, in the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry report of 2011 concerning the Mavi Marmara incident from the previous year, found that Israel’s Gaza blockade is legal under international law."

Let's not get into the Mavi Marmara incident from 2010. The relevant border control issue is that Israel's conrol of what/who goes in or out of Gaza mwans that is is the occupying power, i.e. Gaza is an open air prison.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, placnx said:

Thank you for these links. They are really deep into spiritual pondering. These anti-Zionists would be excellent candidates for Palestinian citizenship.

At least until the Palestinians found out they were Jews and killed them. 

[Nick Carter icp]

11 minutes ago, placnx said:

Let's not get into the Mavi Marmara incident from 2010. The relevant border control issue is that Israel's conrol of what/who goes in or out of Gaza mwans that is is the occupying power, i.e. Gaza is an open air prison.

 

   The U.N states that its necessary for Israel to blockade Gaza because it helps stop Hamas from attacking Israel and don't forget Gaza also shares border with Egypt 

[Rimmer]

A couple of off topic troll posts have been removed

Please see our Community Standards

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch:

The American journalist and political activist Phyllis Bennis described UN Watch as a "small Geneva-based right-wing organisation" that is "hardly known outside of UN headquarters".[67] She stressed that "undermining and delegitimising" Richard Falk through "scurrilous accusations" has been an "obsession of UN Watch" when he became Special Rapporteur.[67]

Agence France-Presse has described UN Watch both as "a lobby group with strong ties to Israel"[12] and as a group which "champion[s] human rights worldwide".[68] The Economist has described UN Watch as a "pro-Israeli monitor".

 

Looking at the unwatch link shows the obvious obsession with countering legitimate criticism of Israel.

And? its biased sure, it watches the watcher but reports on facts. Seems you've got nothing better to do than deflect and blame the messenger. UN Watch has also exposed many of UN staff in Gaza schools enabling terrorist training for kids.

 

Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid

UNITED NATIONS — A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable.

https://archive.ph/vY4fq

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html

 

[CharlieKo]

I'd like to see the proof that 7000 children were killed. This is Hamas propaganda!

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

I'd like to see the proof that 7000 children were killed. This is Hamas propaganda!

We'll never know but I heard an interesting point. Children are defined as under 18. Many active Hamas terrorists are teens. 

 

I wish there were none dead, whether civilian or Hamas operatives.

 

But Hamas made that impossible on October 7.

 

Next ...

 

[300sd]

You give us back our people and we will have a cease fire. If there is one more rocket fired from Gaza, ever again, we will wipe it off the face of the earth. How on that?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

Let's not get into the Mavi Marmara incident from 2010. The relevant border control issue is that Israel's conrol of what/who goes in or out of Gaza mwans that is is the occupying power, i.e. Gaza is an open air prison.

 

Why is the Gaza Strip under blockade ?

[ezzra]

Why keep on quoting dead babies and Palestinians numbers when the terrorist do nothing to stop that from happening? stop fighting,  lay down your arms, send back the kidnapped Israelis, dead or alive, renounce all hostilities and seat down and talk and you all will live longer...

[Jingthing]

38 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Why keep on quoting dead babies and Palestinians numbers when the terrorist do nothing to stop that from happening? stop fighting,  lay down your arms, send back the kidnapped Israelis, dead or alive, renounce all hostilities and seat down and talk and you all will live longer...

Because it's what Hamas has.

The PR war which they're awfully good at.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

We'll never know but I heard an interesting point. Children are defined as under 18. Many active Hamas terrorists are teens. 

 

I wish there were none dead, whether civilian or Hamas operatives.

 

But Hamas made that impossible on October 7.

 

Next ...

 

I may be misrepresenting your words but that 'next' seems awfully flippant. Like because of what Hamas did, which was of course terrible, the amount of death to Palestinian children is now somehow immaterial or irrelevant. As though once Hamas did that Israel have the right to do whatever it takes to bring Hamas down no matter how many casualties child or otherwise. But I may not be understanding your use of the word next. 

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I may be misrepresenting your words but that 'next' seems awfully flippant. Like because of what Hamas did, which was of course terrible, the amount of death to Palestinian children is now somehow immaterial or irrelevant. As though once Hamas did that Israel have the right to do whatever it takes to bring Hamas down no matter how many casualties child or otherwise. But I may not be understanding your use of the word next. 

 

Do you think any country could have tackled a terrorist enemy like Hamas with hundreds of miles of tunnels and a policy of using civilian shields without massive civilian casualties?

Hamas knew exactly what they were bringing on their own civilians on October 7.

They care less about their own civilians than Israel does.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I may be misrepresenting your words but that 'next' seems awfully flippant. Like because of what Hamas did, which was of course terrible, the amount of death to Palestinian children is now somehow immaterial or irrelevant. As though once Hamas did that Israel have the right to do whatever it takes to bring Hamas down no matter how many casualties child or otherwise. But I may not be understanding your use of the word next. 

 

I see that 'next' as relating to 'arguments' raised here, not the death of the children.

 

[Neeranam]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

On the other side of the coin perhaps thousands of Gazan children would be alive today if Israel had not conducted, as claimed by Pres Biden, indiscriminate bombing. Apparently past due for the Israeli's to wind back the level of aggression.

Exactly, US presidents choose their words carefully, yet some here adamantly say there are no war crimes being comitted, it's bizarre. It's disgusting.

7000+ children OMG