6 ms·

ANC, FLN, French resistance are all irrelevant examples because once again, as I explained, Hamas is an organization dedicated to destruction of Israel Israel

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.
      - johnnyworker 3y ago
        First Israel "completely withdrew", now it didn't, but for good reasons. There simply aren't justifications for using starvation against civilians, calling them animals and calling for their extermination, while IDF soldiers make videos rifling through the belongings of Palestinians to mock them, talking about colonization. "They" (Israeli hard right etc.) always wanted to take the land, so using the crimes of Hamas as an excuse to do just whatever, for just targeting infrastructure to make Gaza unlivable, as they so proudly describe in interviews, while repeating how it's all just self-defense is just too transparent. > it's clear that this would have been a lot worse for Israel if the blockade wasn't there You think? As they say, there is nothing scarier than a man without hope, and nobody is complaining about not letting weapons in. At least I am not. There is the cost to Israel. You cannot commit and justify atrocities, dehumanize other humans completely, without getting deeply damaged yourself. As Chris Hedges wrote about comraderie (versus friendship), it feels great in war time, it's a high, for a while, but the comedown is really depressing and lonely. And then there is the damage in the eyes of the world, which will keep trickling in for many years. The US, UK, Israel and Germany have no credibility right now except to each other and the usual vassals.
runarberg 3y ago
I feel like you are purposefully derailing the discussion. First of all the French Resistance was dedicated to the destruction of Vichy France and Nazy Germany, and the ANC was dedicated to the destruction of Apartheid South Africa. The current Hamas charter only calls for the destruction of Zionist Israel, not for Israel as a nation. Second of all, I stated before that the only relevant comparison, and the only comparison I ever made, was that they operate from occupied territory and against their occupiers. How far they go against their occupiers is indeed irrelevant, like we have both pointed out. Israel does occupy Gaza, and they have since 1967, no matter how much you deny it. And as such, they bare full responsibility for what goes on in there. Off course any terrorists from Gaza are responsible for their own actions, and should be charged in a court of law. But Israel cannot fight those terrorists by causing mass civilian casualty inside the territory they control. And if they do, any collateral damage they cause, is their responsibility, and a crime they must answer too.
- vasilipupkin 3y ago
  "The current Hamas charter only calls for the destruction of Zionist Israel, not for Israel as a nation" This is gaslighting. There is no doubt that Hamas wants to kill all Israelis because we not only have the text of the charter, but we have their actions on October 7th and their subsequent statements. Israel does not occupy Gaza, they left Gaza in 2005, you can't just pretend like that did not happen, come on. Israel did not have a physical presence inside Gaza before this latest round of fighting, this is a fact and it's absurd to deny it.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    I find it interesting that you are willing to assume intent on Hamas while Israel is literally on trial for intending to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group. Everything you say about Hamas can be equally applied to Israel, and it is exactly what South Africa does in its legal case for the ICJ.
    - vasilipupkin 3y ago
      No, it can't equally be applied to Israel, just because South Africa does something, it doesn't follow that it's logical or correct. It can't equally be applied to Israel because Hamas attacked on October 7th and subsequently vowed to repeat these attacks. That is extremely relevant, you can't just ignore this fact.

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.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      First Israel "completely withdrew", now it didn't, but for good reasons. There simply aren't justifications for using starvation against civilians, calling them animals and calling for their extermination, while IDF soldiers make videos rifling through the belongings of Palestinians to mock them, talking about colonization. "They" (Israeli hard right etc.) always wanted to take the land, so using the crimes of Hamas as an excuse to do just whatever, for just targeting infrastructure to make Gaza unlivable, as they so proudly describe in interviews, while repeating how it's all just self-defense is just too transparent. > it's clear that this would have been a lot worse for Israel if the blockade wasn't there You think? As they say, there is nothing scarier than a man without hope, and nobody is complaining about not letting weapons in. At least I am not. There is the cost to Israel. You cannot commit and justify atrocities, dehumanize other humans completely, without getting deeply damaged yourself. As Chris Hedges wrote about comraderie (versus friendship), it feels great in war time, it's a high, for a while, but the comedown is really depressing and lonely. And then there is the damage in the eyes of the world, which will keep trickling in for many years. The US, UK, Israel and Germany have no credibility right now except to each other and the usual vassals.

runarberg 3y ago

I feel like you are purposefully derailing the discussion. First of all the French Resistance was dedicated to the destruction of Vichy France and Nazy Germany, and the ANC was dedicated to the destruction of Apartheid South Africa. The current Hamas charter only calls for the destruction of Zionist Israel, not for Israel as a nation. Second of all, I stated before that the only relevant comparison, and the only comparison I ever made, was that they operate from occupied territory and against their occupiers. How far they go against their occupiers is indeed irrelevant, like we have both pointed out. Israel does occupy Gaza, and they have since 1967, no matter how much you deny it. And as such, they bare full responsibility for what goes on in there. Off course any terrorists from Gaza are responsible for their own actions, and should be charged in a court of law. But Israel cannot fight those terrorists by causing mass civilian casualty inside the territory they control. And if they do, any collateral damage they cause, is their responsibility, and a crime they must answer too.

vasilipupkin 3y ago
"The current Hamas charter only calls for the destruction of Zionist Israel, not for Israel as a nation" This is gaslighting. There is no doubt that Hamas wants to kill all Israelis because we not only have the text of the charter, but we have their actions on October 7th and their subsequent statements. Israel does not occupy Gaza, they left Gaza in 2005, you can't just pretend like that did not happen, come on. Israel did not have a physical presence inside Gaza before this latest round of fighting, this is a fact and it's absurd to deny it.
- runarberg 3y ago
  I find it interesting that you are willing to assume intent on Hamas while Israel is literally on trial for intending to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as a group. Everything you say about Hamas can be equally applied to Israel, and it is exactly what South Africa does in its legal case for the ICJ.
  - vasilipupkin 3y ago
    No, it can't equally be applied to Israel, just because South Africa does something, it doesn't follow that it's logical or correct. It can't equally be applied to Israel because Hamas attacked on October 7th and subsequently vowed to repeat these attacks. That is extremely relevant, you can't just ignore this fact.