3 ms·

> 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 not

> 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
  - wolverine876 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. My impression was that the Palestinian issue was not at all at the heart of anyone's objectives, that some outside powers mentioned it in passing, and that Israel said nothing about it. I read that the Palestinians were very concerned about being abandoned by the world (they already see it that way, but thought the deal would be the final nail), and after the attacks I read that Hamas said that was an impetus for the attack. > 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. That's Israel's argument and I expect it's at least somewhat true, but it's one of those things repeated often but that I haven't seen much factual support for. I don't expect much factual support: Who has access to Hamas planning, witnesses enough attacks, etc. to provide some objective verification? So that doesn't make it true or false, but I still have questions: In densely-populated Gaza, does Hamas have a non-civilian place from which to operate? And Hamas is an insurgency; they can't operate openly (have bases, open formations, etc.) - they would just be target practice for the Israeli bombs. I'd like to see a military expert talk about it. Israeli partisans like to frame the issue with the last sentence quoted, but they have many other options of kind and degree, and they've had other options for many years. Israel has chosen in the recent past (~ last 20 years) indefinite low-level warfare, which is a self-defeating choice. I'm mostly objecting to these points. I don't think they represent Israel's real position and needs well, but undermine it. > Talking about history, I don't understand the whole fuzz about this anyway. Jews have been there for thousands of years. I'm not sure what fuzz you're referring to here? Length of tenure doesn't entitle anyone to real estate or the world would be really screwed up: every square meter has had many occupants, especially the Holy Land. It is a popular way aggressors justify themselves - 'it is our ancestral land!' Putin, for example, uses that for Ukraine.

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
- wolverine876 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. My impression was that the Palestinian issue was not at all at the heart of anyone's objectives, that some outside powers mentioned it in passing, and that Israel said nothing about it. I read that the Palestinians were very concerned about being abandoned by the world (they already see it that way, but thought the deal would be the final nail), and after the attacks I read that Hamas said that was an impetus for the attack. > 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. That's Israel's argument and I expect it's at least somewhat true, but it's one of those things repeated often but that I haven't seen much factual support for. I don't expect much factual support: Who has access to Hamas planning, witnesses enough attacks, etc. to provide some objective verification? So that doesn't make it true or false, but I still have questions: In densely-populated Gaza, does Hamas have a non-civilian place from which to operate? And Hamas is an insurgency; they can't operate openly (have bases, open formations, etc.) - they would just be target practice for the Israeli bombs. I'd like to see a military expert talk about it. Israeli partisans like to frame the issue with the last sentence quoted, but they have many other options of kind and degree, and they've had other options for many years. Israel has chosen in the recent past (~ last 20 years) indefinite low-level warfare, which is a self-defeating choice. I'm mostly objecting to these points. I don't think they represent Israel's real position and needs well, but undermine it. > Talking about history, I don't understand the whole fuzz about this anyway. Jews have been there for thousands of years. I'm not sure what fuzz you're referring to here? Length of tenure doesn't entitle anyone to real estate or the world would be really screwed up: every square meter has had many occupants, especially the Holy Land. It is a popular way aggressors justify themselves - 'it is our ancestral land!' Putin, for example, uses that for Ukraine.