Well, that was wrong. They have released two more women, though. I'm guessing they hope this slow release - there were two women released before, on Friday - would delay any Israeli ground attack,.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Well, that was wrong. They have released two more women, though. I'm guessing they hope this slow release - there were two women released before, on Friday - would delay any Israeli ground attack,.
I wasn't trying to claim its the dominant viewpoint in Israel, though I'm not sure how Smotrich and Ben Gvir have very little power. Nor did I say it was an official government stance. I personally think it is on the cards, through a thousand cuts, as opposed to a massive event.
Regardless, it wasn't really the crux of my point. I've personally not been that interested in trying to just posting the worst of either side to make a point.
However, I was trying to reply to this poster, who makes sweeping statements (the protestors in London harbour a lot of anti-semites, jihadis etc etc) and who said a person at a pro-Palestine rally chanting from the river to the sea is calling for genocide. He'd also said he disagreed with the label of genocide for what is happening in Gaza now (which I agree with actually).
So I was asking him if he thinks actual Israeli politicians calling for annexation and who's ultimate end goal is a greater Israel from the river to the sea are also calling for genocide or whether that's just a term we give to Arabs.
Powerful stuff. Completely true about what's going on here.
I don't read minds, I don't know what the Hamas leaders actually think. Do I see them as more trustworthy because of their new charter? Not really. Would I choose another dialogue partner if I were the leader of the Israeli government? Absolutely.
I harbor an intense dislike, to stay polite, and mistrust towards any islamist group or movement, and that includes the Hamas, not in small part due to my long and personal experience with them. I don't believe one bit in political Islam or any religion/ethnic group as a viable political project. It can only end in tears. I also perfectly know on which soil these groups are born and thrive and why people join them.
They changed it in 2017 because the 1987 charter made them look like rabid clowns. Also 2017 is certainly not 1987, a lot has changed since then. There was a new reality that they had to take into account. They were on the losing side, couldn't get anything done since they came to power, things were only getting worse. No one would talk to them. Now was it really a slow rethink of their relations with Israel and a new future, or a fresh coat of paint just to make them more presentable? Even if it was the former, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the destruction of Israel as a political goal has been indeed abandoned.
In the end, it doesn't matter they're out of the picture now and should never have been in it to begin with.
But if someone thinks that the injustifiable, monstrous massacres on 7/10 were just them satisfying their bloodlust and tries to frame it as some kind of first step from the Hamas to the fulfillment of the (un)written destruction of Israel, they're either willfully ignorant, disingenuous, or living in La-la-land. It leads us away from the elephant in the room, namely the occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. As long as there's no effort made to solve these two crucial issues, in a just way for both Israelis and Palestinians, we are bound to see this kind of madness again, again and again. Until there's indeed only one side left there.
You, of all people, perfectly know it.
Last edited:
They do have power through their offices and have unfortunately caused enough damage already, with their support to the setllers. It's just that their cabinet positions aren't very important. This isn't the British cabinet. It's rather toothless.
Just to add a bit of further context, this was the period when the Saudis and partners really began to clamp down on the Muslim Brotherhood, across the board. And one of the less discussed aspects of Hamas' attempted re-branding at this time was their attempt to dissociate from their Brotherhood roots.
Fair enough, I'll take your much more informed word for it!
Like I said though, that wasn't really the crux of my point anyway and I'm not that interested in just trying to post the worst members of both sides.
Just found it interesting how easy it was/is for that poster to shout genocide for people saying something at a random protest but was seemingly not aware that there are people in actual government who have the same views.
I think you'll see more of this - a drip, drip of Hamas incrementally releasing hostages to delay the invasion. A specific tactic to delay in the hopes global opinion changes and begins working against the Israeli side.
Thank you for expanding on it. Little good it did to them, SA still abandoned them basically pushed them in the arms of Iran.
Interestingly Saudi Arabia turning on Hamas also happened the same year (2017), which also coincides with the appointment of Bin Salman as Crown Prince. Can we deduce that the two are correlated? MbS had evidently other ideas about the region.
Europe is absolutely clueless and racist. It's pretty amazing when people here start talking about democracy and stuff like that only when it suits their democracy they learn on the internet that is really irrelevant in grand scheme of things when things like this aren't allowed regulary.
It's still two more. Hopefully they will all be released, they don't deserve this.
Does Hamas want a two state solution?
Does Israel?
No
Israel are the only country in the world to offer a state to the Palestinian people.
This reflects very badly on Angola, Peru, and Brunei.
I'm guessing they are open to releasing citizens as long as it serves them (although they've been holding two Israeli citizens who crossed the border to Gaza for many years).
They are also holding soldiers, though. They won't be releasing them without some deal to release their own prisoners in Israel.
Netanyahu clearly doesn't, and unfortunately he's been the PM since 2009, except for 1.5 years.
The river to the sea was and is part of Israeli creed.
It was something mentioned before Israel and is in Netanyahus party "constitution".
I posted this with references a few days ago.
If Likud party is in power it's absolutely an official stance
It precedes Netanyahu tbf.
Even in in the 20's the agenda was to take what's on offer with a view to taking it all. It being land.
I've posted pieces days ago with quotes.
Netanyahu's predecessor held negotiations with Abbas and I believe he was serious and sincere in his attempts to find a solution. Unfortunately he had to resign.
That's slightly more important than the 20s.
That goes without saying, but I'm hoping to see at least all the children, women and elderlies being released, no matter the reasoning behind.
The whole situation is absolutely hearbreaking.
If it any point in the future I am lucky to lead a country, I am developing nuclear weapons, that is the only guarantee to self defense. I will go as far as letting the whole world know that I have one, in order to deter '' democracies and shared value countries'' from attacking me.
It is completely unjust for a small country like Israel to hold nuclear weapons and a country like Egypt, Turkey or RSA to not possess one.
There is two reasons why Israel is able to continue to act with impunity and disregard for International law and multiple UN resolutions
1. USA and Pro-Israel lobby
2. Nuclear weapons
Someone will post and remind me how I have forgotten 07/10 which I know was tragic and barbaric, but to assume that this conflict started with that attack is being disingenuous and lacking good faith
It is completely unjust for a small country like Israel to hold nuclear weapons and a country like Egypt, Turkey or RSA to not possess one.
There is two reasons why Israel is able to continue to act with impunity and disregard for International law and multiple UN resolutions
1. USA and Pro-Israel lobby
2. Nuclear weapons
Someone will post and remind me how I have forgotten 07/10 which I know was tragic and barbaric, but to assume that this conflict started with that attack is being disingenuous and lacking good faith
Given that they're also the only ones actively stealing land from them, it's the least they could do.
Your hypothetical country would probably get invaded and obliterated and before you had the chance to develop one, especially if you behave as if you may consider using it.
As for your second point. Israel is backed by the US. The fact that they have nukes is a distant consideration.
No. He didn’t delete it… I don’t know why it isn’t showing here.
https://x.com/justinamash/status/1716525360647451063?s=46
During the last bombardment of Gaza I noticed, and wrote about it, how some journalists were doing a report. Some Palestinian kids were playing in the background.
All of a sudden there was an explosion and the journalists hit the deck and were all over the palace in panic.
The kids looked at them as if they were nuts and just carried on.
I said at the time when these kids grow up they are going to be damaged or dangerous.
When it comes to Hamas their millionaire leaders live in luxury in the Middle East. If the people doing the attacking on the 7th were those kids is anybody really surprised at the brutality?
That's not making excuses for a massacre. When I was a young lad I went to where I'm from. Kashmir. I spoke with a "mujahid". He wasn't in it for religious reasons despite the rhetoric. He had seen his wife raped and killed by Indian soldiers and his daughter. He simply said I kill them where I see them.
I still remember his eyes. They just looked dead. I remember being disturbed by it for a long while. I see the same in the kids of Palestine
The 20's was to highlight that it was never the intention to accept a two state solution. It never has been and never will be.
I expect to see more released, and at a higher rate. Maybe not 50, but more than 2 at a time.
Also, how is the Israeli public view going now? Less support for a ground operation? More focus on releasing hostages?
Last edited:
The Jewish people are one of the most persecuted in human history. Ancient Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Spanish, Germans. Have all looked to eradicate them. Israel above any other country possibly should have Nuclear Weapons to ensure its own survival and the survival of the world's oldest religion.
Is it wrong to ask why this was? Why the Jews specifically over any other people's?
I was reading some stuff from before the Balfour agreement and there is a quote from a British, Jewish politician (name escapes me) who was dead against a Jewish state.
His reasoning was that once there is a Jewish state the Jews around the world would be homeless. He cited russian Jews as no longer being seen as Russian, with no protection or need for Russia to offer them rights as "true citizens". Because of a nation state. He actually predicted Jewish persecution and lack of rights and them being used as future scapegoats. Then Hitler happened.
I'm no way even suggesting a "bought it on themselves" narrative here. Or anything of the kind. Just interesting that this was a point raised during the very early discussions of a Jewish homeland and by a Jewish person.
Why can't the Jewish people have one (smaller than Wales) in their ancestral homeland? After the Holocaust the need for a Jewish state was even more of a necessity. Jews needed to be able to protect themselves.
Israel was prepared to offer it 20 or so years ago.
There is no point Israel offering something that they know Hamas is uninterested in. There is no two state solution.
Hamas want a one state solution - ie the end of Israel.
Hamas are a symptom, not the cause of the hostilities between the people. They've only been around for 30 years.
Would you extend the same classification to settlers who terrorise, murder and steal the homes of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank?
The Holocaust wasn't the reason for a Jewish homeland. The discussions had begun in the 1920's. Earlier if you look at the demand from Russian Jews .
The ancestral home argument is void and was a major sticking point for the mandate in the 1920's. Likes of Lord Curzon were against that notion as he didn't feel it had basis.
The size of the land is irrelevant too. Fact is there were people living there who were displaced and l, well robbed. You didn't address my post
No they weren't. They never have been.
It's in the writings and words of likes of Netanyahu that they needed a Hamas to stop certain things happening. They vested time and money into the creation of them
The Ancient Greeks sought to eradicate jews? I'm unaware of this. When did that occur?