6 ms·

British Army and the IRA is not a relevant example. At no point did IRA want to destroy all of Britain and kill all British people. IRA phoned in bomb threats.

British Army and the IRA is not a relevant example. At no point did IRA want to destroy all of Britain and kill all British people. IRA phoned in bomb threats. It's a totally different situation. Hamas has 30 thousand fighters and its goal is actual destruction of Israel. Again, Israel ended the occupation of Gaza in 2005, it withdrew from Gaza and removed all settlements. The only thing that accomplished is worsen Israeli security, provided Hamas with a base to fire thousands of rockets from and ultimately culminated in October 7th. So, Israel is left with no options other than a full war against Hamas and yes, it is a war. Since Hamas is the official government in control of Gaza it is most definitely a war. If you prefer to call it armed conflict instead of war, that's fine, it doesn't change the reality of what's happening.

runarberg 3y ago
My comparison between the IRA and Hamas was never anything more than that they both operated from occupied territory. I could have used the ANC, FLN, the French Resistance, etc. Hamas may be the government of Gaza, but they are still operating from a territory occupied by Israel. Hamas does control some things in Gaza, including the legislator, but the Israel army has the ultimate control. Look this has been debated before. If you choose to deny the occupation of Gaza, that is up to you. You are just wrong about it.
- vasilipupkin 3y ago
  ANC, FLN, French resistance are all irrelevant examples because once again, as I explained, Hamas is an organization dedicated to destruction of Israel Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. That is an undeniable fact. Subsequently, Hamas took over and started firing rockets at Israel, which caused Israel to impose a blockade on Gaza. Egypt also blockades Gaza, btw. Saying that Israel occupies Gaza without acknowledging that Israel actually pulled out of Gaza in 2005 is just silly. Israel did not control what happens inside Gaza strip for the simple reason that it did not have a presence inside Gaza strip, which is why Hamas was able to build all those tunnels. Why deny the facts? What's the point?
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip > Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, as well as six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities. The extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's inhabitants. The system of control imposed by Israel was described in the fall 2012 edition of International Security as an "indirect occupation". The European Union (EU) considers Gaza to be occupied. This is how it was possible for Israel to cut off millions of people from the internet as it starves them to death.
    - vasilipupkin 3y ago
      yes, but why did Israel and Egypt put restrictions on Gaza after Israel left Gaza in 2005? Why did this happen? Surely, the reasons are extremely relevant for any conversation on this topic.
      - johnnyworker 3y ago
        Unless you think that reason is that all Palestinians are terrorist and not humans, I fail to see how they're relevant. I'd be happy to accuse Egypt, too, where applicable.
        vasilipupkin 3y ago
        sorry, that's just an absurd way to reason about things. Of course, they are relevant. Israel is not acting in a vacuum. It didn't just wake up one day having completely withdrawn from Gaza and say, let me blockade Gaza for no reason at all, just because we feel like it. They did it for specific reasons and so, if you are going to talk about the blockade and not mention at all, pretend like the reason for the blockade just isn't there, then your analysis just becomes absurd. The reason for it was that Hamas took over and proceeded to fire rockets at Israel, right? That Hamas is a terrorist organization. Look at the military infrastructure they were able to build under the conditions of the blockade, it's clear that this would have been a lot worse for Israel if the blockade wasn't there. And Israel as a state has a primary responsibility to protect its own civilians against being murdered by Hamas. This clearly is highly relevant to any analysis here.

runarberg 3y ago

My comparison between the IRA and Hamas was never anything more than that they both operated from occupied territory. I could have used the ANC, FLN, the French Resistance, etc. Hamas may be the government of Gaza, but they are still operating from a territory occupied by Israel. Hamas does control some things in Gaza, including the legislator, but the Israel army has the ultimate control. Look this has been debated before. If you choose to deny the occupation of Gaza, that is up to you. You are just wrong about it.

vasilipupkin 3y ago
ANC, FLN, French resistance are all irrelevant examples because once again, as I explained, Hamas is an organization dedicated to destruction of Israel Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005. That is an undeniable fact. Subsequently, Hamas took over and started firing rockets at Israel, which caused Israel to impose a blockade on Gaza. Egypt also blockades Gaza, btw. Saying that Israel occupies Gaza without acknowledging that Israel actually pulled out of Gaza in 2005 is just silly. Israel did not control what happens inside Gaza strip for the simple reason that it did not have a presence inside Gaza strip, which is why Hamas was able to build all those tunnels. Why deny the facts? What's the point?
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip > Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel, supported by additional restrictions placed on Gaza by Egypt. Israel maintains direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, as well as six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the right to enter Gaza at will with its military and maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. Gaza is dependent on Israel for water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities. The extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's inhabitants. The system of control imposed by Israel was described in the fall 2012 edition of International Security as an "indirect occupation". The European Union (EU) considers Gaza to be occupied. This is how it was possible for Israel to cut off millions of people from the internet as it starves them to death.
  - vasilipupkin 3y ago
    yes, but why did Israel and Egypt put restrictions on Gaza after Israel left Gaza in 2005? Why did this happen? Surely, the reasons are extremely relevant for any conversation on this topic.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      Unless you think that reason is that all Palestinians are terrorist and not humans, I fail to see how they're relevant. I'd be happy to accuse Egypt, too, where applicable.
      - vasilipupkin 3y ago
        sorry, that's just an absurd way to reason about things. Of course, they are relevant. Israel is not acting in a vacuum. It didn't just wake up one day having completely withdrawn from Gaza and say, let me blockade Gaza for no reason at all, just because we feel like it. They did it for specific reasons and so, if you are going to talk about the blockade and not mention at all, pretend like the reason for the blockade just isn't there, then your analysis just becomes absurd. The reason for it was that Hamas took over and proceeded to fire rockets at Israel, right? That Hamas is a terrorist organization. Look at the military infrastructure they were able to build under the conditions of the blockade, it's clear that this would have been a lot worse for Israel if the blockade wasn't there. And Israel as a state has a primary responsibility to protect its own civilians against being murdered by Hamas. This clearly is highly relevant to any analysis here.