4 ms·

Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories. It seems pretty logical to me that when a state starts illegally extending its

Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories. It seems pretty logical to me that when a state starts illegally extending its borders pretty much immediately after its formation, their neighbors will not be happy about it and will fight back. No need to be an antisemite to understand this, it's just common sense.

edanm 3y ago
What are you talking about? Israel was attacked by several armies and conquered land as part of a defensive war, that is a completely legitimate capturing of that land.
RamblingCTO 3y ago
> Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories. Tell me you know nothing about this conflict without telling me you know nothing about it. Israel was inches away from just having to give the Palestinians their own state. Why then, did Hamas attack just before that? The answer is simple: it is and always has been about removing Israel. That's true for Hamas and all their supporters. They aren't interested in a two-state solution. So don't act like it's about Israel not being a nice neighbour.
- regularjack 3y ago
  I know enough about this conflict to know that Israel illegally occupies territories. If I am wrong about that, please do educate me.
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    You're not wrong about that. It's still not the reason for this dispute. See my other comments.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Israel was inches away from just having to give the Palestinians their own state. I follow that situation pretty closely and my understanding is that it was the opposite: The Palestinians' supporters were about to make deals with Israel - deals they refused to make while Palestinian territory was occupied - and leave the Palestinians mostly in the cold. Interview with Hamas leaders after the attack, iirc, said the same - they were going to be forgotten and needed to put the Palestinians back at the center of the issue. For years before the attack, Israel had openly disparaged and abandoned the two-state solution, and expended settlements in the West Bank (which is supposed to be Palestinian territory under the two-state solution). Do you have anything that says a two-state solution was imminent? > don't act like it's about Israel not being a nice neighbour Could it be both? Hamas did something horrible. Murdering civilians isn't justified (why do I need to type that?) but history didn't start that day.
  - 0x457 3y ago
    > why do I need to type that? You don't, but the comment you're replying to is replying to: "Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories."
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    It was my understanding that a deal with Saudi Arabia would have pushed Israel to a more peaceful solution (see https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302 and others. note the date) like abandoning settlements and such. Hamas would loose it's foothold with some Palestinians in that case. > Could it be both? Hamas did something horrible. Murdering civilians isn't justified (why do I need to type that?) but history didn't start that day. You don't. But I typically don't write a whole disclaimer about such trivial things. What I will say though: Hamas uses civilians as protective shields, hides under hospitals etc. to generate outrage. And you can see it working pretty well. Or shooting rockets from the rooftops of civilian's houses. I don't envy Israel: either shoot civilians or loose your own in rocket attacks. There just is no right here, but one plan of action to me looks less wrong than the other. Talking about history, I don't understand the whole fuzz about this anyway. Jews have been there for thousands of years. There's even a Quran sunna about "allah promised the children of noah the holy land" (or something like that). You'd think that makes it clearer. To me it feels like the deeply entrenched antisemitism of the middle east is just blind rage. /e: I really liked this video about the history btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN4mnVLP0rU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN4mnVLP0rU

edanm 3y ago

What are you talking about? Israel was attacked by several armies and conquered land as part of a defensive war, that is a completely legitimate capturing of that land.

RamblingCTO 3y ago

> Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories. Tell me you know nothing about this conflict without telling me you know nothing about it. Israel was inches away from just having to give the Palestinians their own state. Why then, did Hamas attack just before that? The answer is simple: it is and always has been about removing Israel. That's true for Hamas and all their supporters. They aren't interested in a two-state solution. So don't act like it's about Israel not being a nice neighbour.

regularjack 3y ago
I know enough about this conflict to know that Israel illegally occupies territories. If I am wrong about that, please do educate me.
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  You're not wrong about that. It's still not the reason for this dispute. See my other comments.
wolverine876 3y ago
> Israel was inches away from just having to give the Palestinians their own state. I follow that situation pretty closely and my understanding is that it was the opposite: The Palestinians' supporters were about to make deals with Israel - deals they refused to make while Palestinian territory was occupied - and leave the Palestinians mostly in the cold. Interview with Hamas leaders after the attack, iirc, said the same - they were going to be forgotten and needed to put the Palestinians back at the center of the issue. For years before the attack, Israel had openly disparaged and abandoned the two-state solution, and expended settlements in the West Bank (which is supposed to be Palestinian territory under the two-state solution). Do you have anything that says a two-state solution was imminent? > don't act like it's about Israel not being a nice neighbour Could it be both? Hamas did something horrible. Murdering civilians isn't justified (why do I need to type that?) but history didn't start that day.
- 0x457 3y ago
  > why do I need to type that? You don't, but the comment you're replying to is replying to: "Maybe rockets wouldn't be shot if Israel would not illegally occupy territories."
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  It was my understanding that a deal with Saudi Arabia would have pushed Israel to a more peaceful solution (see https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1141302 and others. note the date) like abandoning settlements and such. Hamas would loose it's foothold with some Palestinians in that case. > Could it be both? Hamas did something horrible. Murdering civilians isn't justified (why do I need to type that?) but history didn't start that day. You don't. But I typically don't write a whole disclaimer about such trivial things. What I will say though: Hamas uses civilians as protective shields, hides under hospitals etc. to generate outrage. And you can see it working pretty well. Or shooting rockets from the rooftops of civilian's houses. I don't envy Israel: either shoot civilians or loose your own in rocket attacks. There just is no right here, but one plan of action to me looks less wrong than the other. Talking about history, I don't understand the whole fuzz about this anyway. Jews have been there for thousands of years. There's even a Quran sunna about "allah promised the children of noah the holy land" (or something like that). You'd think that makes it clearer. To me it feels like the deeply entrenched antisemitism of the middle east is just blind rage. /e: I really liked this video about the history btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN4mnVLP0rU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN4mnVLP0rU