6 ms·

That's pretty much what happens when you attack your stronger neighbor, go on a rape/execution/beheading/burning spree, then run away to embed in your civilian

by breppp 1y ago

That's pretty much what happens when you attack your stronger neighbor, go on a rape/execution/beheading/burning spree, then run away to embed in your civilian population who cannot enter your 400 miles of tunnels, which could have defended them The Palestinians through years of Israeli reinforcements have chosen Hamas, an organization that thinks that sacrificing them all is beneficial, and it is actually partially working for them on international opinion. Unfortunately both sides now needs to pay for their choices

throw310822 1y ago
I think you didn't get my comment. They didn't attack their stronger neighbour. They attacked their invader and occupier- the one that has been attacking, massacring, colonising, annexing, blockading, and generally making their life impossible for the past 80 years.
- breppp 1y ago
  An "invader" and "occupier" that completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation, triggering a Hamas election and take over, and constant rocket fire. Unfortunately actual chronology shows that whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians, leading to more occupation (such as now)
  - throw310822 1y ago
    > completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation). > whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear?
    - breppp 1y ago
      > What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation). No I do not, I don't know anywhere else in the world where occupation was defined as a blockade. Occupation is troops on the ground. Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied, in fact it was the only time and place in history where Palestinians had full sovereignty Israel previously had civilian population settled in Gaza, military bases and military government (hence occupation). It then retreated to the internationally recognized borders and removed all civilians from their homes, in a deeply expensive internal political effort. Naively expecting the international community to give it the needed backing. However as was discovered it was never about occupation all along. > Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear? Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence. This was derailed by Hamas suicide bombings in Israeli towns and PLO rejecting peace offers and initiating the second intifada. Just as the Gazan independence was removed due to Palestinian actions. It is quite clear to me that the Palestinians are ironically doing anything within their power to prevent independence.
      - throw310822 1y ago
        > Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied This is false, all relevant international organisations (the UN, the ICC, the ICJ, the WHO, the Red Cross, all the human rights organisations), an overwhelming majority of legal experts considered Gaza still occupied because of the amount of control Israel exercised on it. What you think in this respect, or your ignorance of the facts, has no relevance on the matter. > Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence There is no "process of progression" (LOL). Israel has to abandon all its settlements and East Jerusalem and retreat within the 1967 borders. They are free to build a steel wall 100 metres high between them and the Palestinians, if they so desire- within their own territory of course. What is not clear about this?

by breppp 1y ago

throw310822 1y ago

I think you didn't get my comment. They didn't attack their stronger neighbour. They attacked their invader and occupier- the one that has been attacking, massacring, colonising, annexing, blockading, and generally making their life impossible for the past 80 years.

breppp 1y ago
An "invader" and "occupier" that completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation, triggering a Hamas election and take over, and constant rocket fire. Unfortunately actual chronology shows that whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians, leading to more occupation (such as now)
- throw310822 1y ago
  > completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation). > whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear?
  - breppp 1y ago
    > What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation). No I do not, I don't know anywhere else in the world where occupation was defined as a blockade. Occupation is troops on the ground. Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied, in fact it was the only time and place in history where Palestinians had full sovereignty Israel previously had civilian population settled in Gaza, military bases and military government (hence occupation). It then retreated to the internationally recognized borders and removed all civilians from their homes, in a deeply expensive internal political effort. Naively expecting the international community to give it the needed backing. However as was discovered it was never about occupation all along. > Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear? Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence. This was derailed by Hamas suicide bombings in Israeli towns and PLO rejecting peace offers and initiating the second intifada. Just as the Gazan independence was removed due to Palestinian actions. It is quite clear to me that the Palestinians are ironically doing anything within their power to prevent independence.
    - throw310822 1y ago
      > Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied This is false, all relevant international organisations (the UN, the ICC, the ICJ, the WHO, the Red Cross, all the human rights organisations), an overwhelming majority of legal experts considered Gaza still occupied because of the amount of control Israel exercised on it. What you think in this respect, or your ignorance of the facts, has no relevance on the matter. > Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence There is no "process of progression" (LOL). Israel has to abandon all its settlements and East Jerusalem and retreat within the 1967 borders. They are free to build a steel wall 100 metres high between them and the Palestinians, if they so desire- within their own territory of course. What is not clear about this?