Hamas attacking Israel

[Optimist Prime]

47 minutes ago, 24K said:

First hamas want a permanent cease fire. This is only a temporary one that essentially give leverage away from Hamas and allows Israel to re group and rehabilitate their image a bit before continuing on with the slightest form of provocation. 

 

Second, IDF will not completely withdraw from Gaza as under this deal, Isralie retain control of the Netzarium Corridor preventing freedom of movement between southern and northern. Gaza.

 

Third and probabaly the most consequencial, this deal will give Israel indefinite control over the Philidalphia corridor that connects Gaza to Egypt effectively making Gaza a literal Israli open air prison as Israel will have total control of movement of Palestinians and the movement of goods and aids. Israel ain't beating that apartheid ruling with this one. 

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/18/hamas-rejects-us-ceasefire-hostage-proposal

Oh I get you now, thanks for more thoughts on the subject. I think I understand your position now.

[24K]

18 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

An unfortunate part of these discussions is the imo improper analogy use of apartheid and whatever the heck an 'open air prison ' is. Gaza is neither. 

 

This is a unique situation, with it's own history. Why can't we discuss it on its own terms?

 

ICC/ICJ have already ruled Israel as an apartheid so it is not an analogy but established legal ruling. 

 

I do not know about you but if an area is surrounded on all sides with full control of movement of people and goods by people opposing you, it is by definition a prison or I guess encirclement.  

[Yoshiyoshi]

25 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

An unfortunate part of these discussions is the imo improper analogy use of apartheid and whatever the heck an 'open air prison ' is. Gaza is neither. 

 

This is a unique situation, with it's own history. Why can't we discuss it on its own terms?

 

because then they would have to deal with reality instead of their narrative fantasies

[Bob Long]

19 minutes ago, 24K said:

ICC/ICJ have already ruled Israel as an apartheid so it is not an analogy but established legal ruling. 

 

A ruling with no authority but ok 

 

19 minutes ago, 24K said:

I do not know about you but if an area is surrounded on all sides with full control of movement of people and goods by people opposing you, it is by definition a prison or I guess encirclement.  

 

What happened to Egypt over the last 70 years?

 

How did anyone ever emigrate if it was a prison?

 

All the analogies do is make it harder to understand the reality there imo. 

 

Dunno, maybe @Optimist Primecan correct me on this idea.

 

[24K]

17 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

A ruling with no authority but ok 

ICC have jurisdiction over almost all countries other than USA, Israel, China, and a handful of other countries. It does have authority. It isn't some kangaroo court.

 

17 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

What happened to Egypt over the last 70 years?

 

How did anyone ever emigrate if it was a prison?

 

All the analogies do is make it harder to understand the reality there imo. 

 

Dunno, maybe @Optimist Primecan correct me on this idea.

 

What? I said the proposed deal giving Israel indefinite control over the Philidalphia strip, which the Gaza Egypt border sits on would effectively close off Gaza on all sidaes by Israel thus making it a effectively a prison with Israel havung full control over movement of people, goods, and aid. Have nothing to do with Egypt or the past 70 years. 

Edited August 19 by 24K

[Optimist Prime]

12 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

A ruling with no authority but ok 

 

 

What happened to Egypt over the last 70 years?

 

How did anyone ever emigrate if it was a prison?

 

All the analogies do is make it harder to understand the reality there imo. 

 

Dunno, maybe @Optimist Primecan correct me on this idea.

 

It is pointless. When the government of Gaza attacked Israel and Israel shut down their border with Gaza: those who wanted to see it as a prison saw it as a prison, those who wanted to see that a nation attacked by its enemies has no obligation to feed those enemies see it that way. 
It does get complicated in that the Philly corridor was and IS riddled with tunnels for smuggling into and out of Gaza into and out of Egypt, and so if I am a decider for Israel, of course I want to stop that illegal smuggling of rockets and guns and ammo and people into and out of Gaza, but if Israel occupies the Philly Corridor (the border between Gaza and Egypt) then if Israel isn't feeding their enemy: who is? Shrug. 

 

Bigger brains than us here will have to solve this. I suggested months ago that perhaps the west bank be given back to Jordan to administer, and the cherry for doing so would be a mediterranean port and control of Gaza at the same time...run it like the Russians run Kaliningrad, which has no connection to Russia at all, but is part of Russia. 
I don't know if that is even remotely possible, but I think it could be a good solution and over time may de-radicalize Gaza from its current state where 2/3rds are in full support of Hamas...  of course this would all only be possible once Hamas is eliminated from power in Gaza... and so we are back to square one. Almost not worth typing it out, it is that remote a possibility. 

[Optimist Prime]

3 hours ago

The Hezbollah confirms the death of Hussein Ali Hussein Suleiman in an Israeli army drone strike in southern Lebanon's Deir Qanoun earlier this evening

[RomanPer]

46 minutes ago, 24K said:

ICC/ICJ have already ruled Israel as an apartheid so it is not an analogy but established legal ruling. 

 

I do not know about you but if an area is surrounded on all sides with full control of movement of people and goods by people opposing you, it is by definition a prison or I guess encirclement.  

 

Please quote the exact ruling that has this specific definition.

[RomanPer]

25 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

A ruling with no authority but ok 

 

 

 

And a ruling that doesn't even exist.

[Ilunga]

5 hours ago, Taxi said:

 

F-off with the accusations about "lies". This is just jeering and totally unnecessary. You're trying to build some narrative out of 3-4 out of context quotes. 

 

You're playing both sides. If Israel thwarts Hamas with economic means, like blockades, it's collective punishment. If Israel allows funds to flow into Gaza, they're propping up Hamas. Well which is? Should Israel have strangled Hamas militarily, harming Gazans, or should they have allowed Hamas' economy to run?

 

The article you posted is complete hogwash. Hamas was not founded with Israel support. In fact, Hamas' founder was jailed by Israel both directly before and after Hamas was founded. I love how this article just states:

 

"HAMAS, A SPIN-OFF OF THE PALESTINIAN BRANCH OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD WAS FORMERLY ESTABLISHED WITH ISRAELS SUPPORT SOON AFTER THE FIRST INTIFADA FLARED IN 1987 AS AN UPRISING AGAINST THE ISREALI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND'S. "

 

Yet provides zero evidence for that.

 

I am not jeering.

 

You have accused me of lying 3 times.

Yet it is you who has lied.

You keep on ignoring the fact that you accused me of denying the Jewish people has any connection to the land of Israel when literally the page before I had mentioned the first and second temple amongst other historical ties.

Thats how stupid you actually are.

 

That article, from a credible source, quoted Isreali sources who stated they helped fund Hamas', and encouraged it, to compete against the PLO. 

So yes it did provide evidence.

 

Netanyahu has openly admitted that anyone who wants the thwart a two state solution should support Hamas'.

 

As the title of one of the Isreali sources stated, Isreal supported Hamas' and it has come back to haunt them.

 

 

 

You are a hasbara troll.

You don't post in any other thread. 

 

You don't have any credibility because you cannot admit when you are wrong.

[24K]

14 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Please quote the exact ruling that has this specific definition.

 

14 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

And a ruling that doesn't even exist.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=whmcspRcp5au1mFxcMBfkhkT233j2d33bxMphv5PFsg-1724108015-0.0.1.1-5033

 

[Bob Long]

23 minutes ago, 24K said:

ICC have jurisdiction over almost all countries other than USA, Israel, China, and a handful of other countries. It does have authority. It isn't some kangaroo court.

 

my point. 

 

23 minutes ago, 24K said:

What? I said the proposed deal giving Israel indefinite control over the Philidalphia strip, which the Gaza Egypt border sits on would effectively close off Gaza on all sidaes by Israel thus making it a effectively a prison with Israel havung full control over movement of people, goods, and aid. Have nothing to do with Egypt or the past 70 years. 

 

sure, now. What about before Oct 7?

 

[Bob Long]

23 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

It is pointless. When the government of Gaza attacked Israel and Israel shut down their border with Gaza: those who wanted to see it as a prison saw it as a prison, those who wanted to see that a nation attacked by its enemies has no obligation to feed those enemies see it that way. 
It does get complicated in that the Philly corridor was and IS riddled with tunnels for smuggling into and out of Gaza into and out of Egypt, and so if I am a decider for Israel, of course I want to stop that illegal smuggling of rockets and guns and ammo and people into and out of Gaza, but if Israel occupies the Philly Corridor (the border between Gaza and Egypt) then if Israel isn't feeding their enemy: who is? Shrug. 

 

Bigger brains than us here will have to solve this. I suggested months ago that perhaps the west bank be given back to Jordan to administer, and the cherry for doing so would be a mediterranean port and control of Gaza at the same time...run it like the Russians run Kaliningrad, which has no connection to Russia at all, but is part of Russia. 
I don't know if that is even remotely possible, but I think it could be a good solution and over time may de-radicalize Gaza from its current state where 2/3rds are in full support of Hamas...  of course this would all only be possible once Hamas is eliminated from power in Gaza... and so we are back to square one. Almost not worth typing it out, it is that remote a possibility. 

 

thanks that all makes sense.

 

My thing about the analogy use is that they don't actually represent whats happened historically or on the ground today. All of them are poor approximations of the whole. Using these as the basis to understand the situation will lead to bad solutions. At least thats what all my training tells me.

 

The reason I pulled you in (sorry I know I'm not supposed to "@" people) is that you've been there, you've experienced it. Was curious about how closely you saw the analogies. But you answered that well I think. 

 

[24K]

5 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

my point. 

Just because the court isn't ractified by those countries for the explicit reason of not wanting to get these kind of ruling cause of war crimes committed doesn't mean it isn't valid. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

sure, now. What about before Oct 7?

 

When did I even mention pre Oct 7th? Stop moving the goal post. 

Edited August 19 by 24K

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, 24K said:

Just because the court isn't rac5ified by those countries for the explicit reason of not wanting to get these kind of ruling cause of war crimes committed doesn't mean it isn't valid. 

 

no jurisdiction actually does mean its invalid in those states. Thats what jurisdiction is for. 

 

2 minutes ago, 24K said:

 

When did I even mention pre Oct 7th? Stop moving the goal post. 

 

not moving any goal posts, I'm trying to understand your "prison" analogy. Gazan's have had various kinds of access to a border for a long time. So would it be an 'open air prison' now, or before? They've also been allowed to emigrate. So I am having a hard time with the prison thing. 

 

Edited August 19 by Bob Long

[24K]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

no jurisdiction actually does mean its invalid in those states. Thats what jurisdiction is for. 

 

Invalid in those states but not an invalid ruling. 

 

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

not moving any goal posts, I'm trying to understand your "prison" analogy. Gaza's have had various kinds of access to a border for a long time. So would it be an 'open air prison' now, or before?

 

Omg, I said the same thing 3x now.

If Israel get full indefinite control of the Philidalphia corridor per this deal then it would effectively create an open air prison. Have nothing to do with the past. Maybe it does now? I don't know the situation on the ground there. 

Edited August 19 by 24K

[Ilunga]

5 hours ago, RomanPer said:

 

Israel is a small country in the world, it never said they are "the leader of the free world". What exactly is convenient? Healthcare in Israel is not free. There are monthly fees for medical insurance that each family pays based on their income. Social security system is behind countries like Canada and European countries. Not sure where you are getting your information from. Income taxes in Israel are very high. Sales tax is 18%.

 

How convenient of you not to list USA in the list of countries that don't recognize ICC... That court is highly politicized.

 

You really need to read my posts carefully roman.

 

What do you think I was stating when I  said, 

They don't recognise the ICC ?

 

I was stating that America does not recognise the ICC and that's one of the reasons that contribute to them not being the leader of the free world.

You know, the post was about America. 

 

How can you be the leader of the free world when you don't recognise the court which is meant to enforce both a rules based order, and International Humanitarian Law. 

 

Comprehension roman.

 

The yanks are 34 trillion in debt.

They have 36 million people living in poverty.

They don't have proper, affordable healthcare for a large percentage of their population.

 

According to your logic, countries should put themselves first.

 

So why should America give so much aid to Isreal, when according to you, countries should look after themselves first and foremost ?

[Bob Long]

5 minutes ago, 24K said:

Invalid in those states but not an invalid ruling. 

 

But this is my point. Relying on this ruling will get you nowhere. Why even bother with it? 

 

5 minutes ago, 24K said:

Omg, I said the same thing 3x now.

If Israel get full indefinite control of the Philidalphia corridor per this deal then it would effectively create an open air prison. Have nothing to do with the past. Maybe it does now? I don't know the situation on the ground there. 

 

we don't need to "omg" each other, I'm actually trying to understand you. 

 

[24K]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

But this is my point. Relying on this ruling will get you nowhere. Why even bother with it? 

Cause it matters to the rest of the world. You don't think this ruling has anything to do with UK suspending weapons sale to Israel? 

 

Also this comment was originally about you saying this isn't true but rather an analogy.

 

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

we don't need to "omg" each other, I'm actually trying to understand you. 

 

You are not though. You brought up the same question 3 times and I answered 3 times. 

 

I don't know what else you need. 

[Optimist Prime]

20 minutes ago, 24K said:

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=whmcspRcp5au1mFxcMBfkhkT233j2d33bxMphv5PFsg-1724108015-0.0.1.1-5033

 

Not that I want to get into a deeper convo today about apartheid but the ICC didn't rule that Israel is committing apartheid, they ruled they are in breach of article 3, which has one of a few options being apartheid. Hamas blowing up a suicide vest in Tel Aviv today may explain why Israel has a guarded border with Gaza, but I doubt you want to see that. 

Your own post shows that the word is used because they are accused of it, then goes on to say they breach article three, which only has apartheid as one of the things that could bring a signatory to be in breach. I am honestly not even sure Israel is a signatory to the validity of the court, but I am tired so I am logging out for now. 

 

I think we all want peace and prosperity for all: arguing over the minutia is pointless anyways. Hamas has to go, I don't care if Putin does it, Israel does it or Biden Does it..or Egypt does it, but they can not be allowed to control Gaza any more, for everyone's peace and future. 

[Ilunga]

People in this thread,  including me, condemn Hamas' for using Human shields in Gaza.

 

I post evidence from an Israeli source, that Israel is using Palestinians as human shields...... silence 

[Optimist Prime]

Just now, Ilunga said:

People in this thread,  including me, condemn Hamas' for using Human shields in Gaza.

 

I post evidence from an Israeli source, that Israel is using Palestinians as human shields...... silence 

This isn't meant to be offensive, but I stopped reading the length of breadth of your posts about 300 pages ago as they are all exactly the same thing and includes the word "I" in almost every one of them. We get you, peace is very important, lets all work for peace. Sorry I missed your post of 'evidence' but I assume you mean a social media post from someone else. Have a good night man, i am tired and loggin out. I seem to be cranky at the moment.

[Ilunga]

1 minute ago, Optimist Prime said:

Not that I want to get into a deeper convo today about apartheid but the ICC didn't rule that Israel is committing apartheid, they ruled they are in breach of article 3, which has one of a few options being apartheid. Hamas blowing up a suicide vest in Tel Aviv today may explain why Israel has a guarded border with Gaza, but I doubt you want to see that. 

Your own post shows that the word is used because they are accused of it, then goes on to say they breach article three, which only has apartheid as one of the things that could bring a signatory to be in breach. I am honestly not even sure Israel is a signatory to the validity of the court, but I am tired so I am logging out for now. 

 

I think we all want peace and prosperity for all: arguing over the minutia is pointless anyways. Hamas has to go, I don't care if Putin does it, Israel does it or Biden Does it..or Egypt does it, but they can not be allowed to control Gaza any more, for everyone's peace and future. 

 

Can you explain to me me why so many prominent Isrealis state Isreal is an arpartheid state ?

 

Why Isreali human rights organisations state Isreal is an arpartheid state ?

 

And this is ignoring the fact that so many international human rights organisations, and tens of millions of people around the world state this.

 

Why Optimist ?

 

I would really appreciate an answer.

[RomanPer]

28 minutes ago, 24K said:

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=whmcspRcp5au1mFxcMBfkhkT233j2d33bxMphv5PFsg-1724108015-0.0.1.1-5033

 

 

I don't know if you understand that you are reaching here. In red you highlight just the word "apartheid", which in all cases refers to what some of the participants CLAIM". The highlights text in green says that Israel is in breach of Article 3 but it doesn't say directly anything about Israel committing apartheid. "Breach of Article 3" does not equal "apartheid".

[RomanPer]

7 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Not that I want to get into a deeper convo today about apartheid but the ICC didn't rule that Israel is committing apartheid, they ruled they are in breach of article 3, which has one of a few options being apartheid. Hamas blowing up a suicide vest in Tel Aviv today may explain why Israel has a guarded border with Gaza, but I doubt you want to see that. 

Your own post shows that the word is used because they are accused of it, then goes on to say they breach article three, which only has apartheid as one of the things that could bring a signatory to be in breach. I am honestly not even sure Israel is a signatory to the validity of the court, but I am tired so I am logging out for now. 

 

I think we all want peace and prosperity for all: arguing over the minutia is pointless anyways. Hamas has to go, I don't care if Putin does it, Israel does it or Biden Does it..or Egypt does it, but they can not be allowed to control Gaza any more, for everyone's peace and future. 

 

I should have read all the replies before writing essentially the same thing a few minutes later