Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

owlo said:
Yes, I feel that's a given at this stage. At least for a while. If and when the Jewish state falls, which could happen in the future, it will likely be bloody beyond imagination. I doubt we'll live to see it though. Do you not feel its a given?

And as for meaningful consequences: My suggestion was that they should be moved to a safe island, given it as a state, and that Israel should pay reparations to make it happen and build their state.
Click to expand...

Jesus fecking Christ.

Many islands kicking around the globe that we don’t know of that can take upwards of 4 million people ?
 
JPRouve said:
First the Antarctica comment was a reference to your stupid suggestion that palestinians should be sent to an island. It should have been obvious if you didn't seriously meant the suggestion that I was mocking.

And the point is the frequency in a small army which is also reflected in their interaction with civilians. The point being that IDF has a high number of problematic people and those people are in constant contact with civilians which means that the stories that we read about gross misconducts aren't surprising.

And yes the same could be said about many other armies when they are deployed abroad, the difference being that they are not constantly and routinely used to control civilians and shouldn't be.
Click to expand...


How have you decided there’s a high number of problematic people, or that the frequency of assault is higher in the IDF? SHA training in the Royal Navy indicated about 70% of women experienced it if I remember right.

You seem to have just picked up on an article and decided that the Israelis are worse at sexual assault than other militaries. And that this high frequency of assaults (it’s not) is reflected in how they treat civilians, or that they treat civilians worse because they are sexually problematic.
 
owlo said:
How have you decided there’s a high number of problematic people, or that the frequency of assault is higher in the IDF? SHA training in the Royal Navy indicated about 70% of women experienced it if I remember right.

You seem to have just picked up on an article and decided that the Israelis are worse at sexual assault than other militaries. And that this high frequency of assaults (it’s not) is reflected in how they treat civilians, or that they treat civilians worse because they are sexually problematic.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken in 2022, the british army as a whole had 333 sexual offences cases and have 185k personnel, IDF had 5 times the amounts while having less active personnel. I could be wrong but comparing them to the british looks like a bad idea.
 
There's only one reason to destroy hospitals, schools, Universities and other cultural landmarks and it has nothing to do with Hamas.
 
JPRouve said:
If I'm not mistaken in 2022, the british army as a whole had 333 sexual offences cases and have 185k personnel, IDF had 5 times the amounts while having less active personnel. I could be wrong but comparing them to the british looks like a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Looks like the British army prosecuted 333, the IDF prosecuted 82. (31+52).

This is 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.g...064759/Army_Sexual_Harassment_Report_2021.pdf

35% of women harrassed, 5% seriously assaulted, 1.8% raped. Translates to roughly 270 raped (out of 16,000) compared to 26 (out of 10,000) reported in the article you mentioned. (We don’t have granularity for the others) . One of the big problem in the IDF is the number of young women present, and the older ones who will take advantage.

The biggest problem is both cases is the number who don’t report or are prevented reporting, thereby enabling the behaviour. The uk for example seems to have prosecuted 14 for rape. It may be easier to report in the IDF (though with 50% backing off, may well be that they are pressured to recant)

I see no evidence here or a particular prevalence for abusers in the IDF. I had a quick skim over wiki for US numbers and they paint a similar story. Certainly nothing to support the theory that the IDF has a far higher rate of MST.
 


A really disgusting journalist/presenter, ITV should really be ashamed. Skip to the part of the interview.
 
owlo said:
Looks like the British army prosecuted 333, the IDF prosecuted 82. (31+52).

This is 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.g...064759/Army_Sexual_Harassment_Report_2021.pdf

35% of women harrassed, 5% seriously assaulted, 1.8% raped. Translates to roughly 270 raped (out of 16,000) compared to 26 (out of 10,000) reported in the article you mentioned. (We don’t have granularity for the others) . One of the big problem in the IDF is the number of young women present, and the older ones who will take advantage.

The biggest problem is both cases is the number who don’t report or are prevented reporting, thereby enabling the behaviour. The uk for example seems to have prosecuted 14 for rape. It may be easier to report in the IDF (though with 50% backing off, may well be that they are pressured to recant)

I see no evidence here or a particular prevalence for abusers in the IDF. I had a quick skim over wiki for US numbers and they paint a similar story. Certainly nothing to support the theory that the IDF has a far higher rate of MST.
Click to expand...

I don't understanding your 82 figure or your figures in general. First the 333 for the British army are investigations not prosecutions and the similar figures for the IDF in 2021 are anything between 1574 which is the amount of inquiries and 514 which is the amount of soldiers that actually received treatment due to sexual abuse.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
The disingenuous distraction of focusing on semantics rather than the war crimes which are currently taking place is ridiculous.

Seems to be part of a wider tactic to obfuscate the most pressing issue, which is civilians being killed right at this moment, every day, continously.
Click to expand...

You see it all the time on Western media and frankly here as well. Very tiresome tactic.


Giggsyking said:


A really disgusting journalist/presenter, ITV should really be ashamed. Skip to the part of the interview.
Click to expand...


Deeply rooted racism that has been normalised over the years. Arab and Palestinian Iives are never seen equal.

Nothing will happen to the presenter who is just going off the same script most other major outlets are given.
 
owlo said:
I agree with him in principle - He gets confused or hazy though about a military strategy that can actually work without either killing innocents or mass military casualties though. But that's just Bernie, he's always been a peaceful soul. And the West Bank point is an important one. Very hard not to agree with a large amount of what hes saying as a principle. In practice he'd frustrate me as a commander, asking the impossible. But everything else is spot on, if somewhat idealistic.
Click to expand...

Does there have to be a military strategy and certainly does there need to be one that involves killing hundreds of innocent people by bombing refugee camps and hospitals?
 


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/white-house-resigned-israel-onslaught-gaza/

White House frustrated by Israel’s onslaught but sees few options

U.S. calls for a bombing pause are having little effect, and the shape of the post-war Mideast is starkly uncertain

U.S. efforts to get Israel to scale back its counterattack in response to the Oct. 7 killings by Hamas that left at least 1,400 Israelis dead have failed or fallen short. The Biden administration urged Israel against a ground invasion,privately asked it to consider proportionality in its attacks, advocated a higher priority on avoiding civilian deaths, and called for a humanitarian pause — only for Israeli officials to dismiss or reject all those suggestions.

U.S. officials had hoped there could be regular bombing pauses so that humanitarian and aid workers could safely operate in Gaza, according to a U.S. official familiar with the discussions. But securing such an arrangement seemed further out of reach after Blinken’s visit.

But from the outset, White House officials have been skeptical that an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza would achieve its stated aim of eliminating Hamas and feared that it would only lead to further escalation and destabilization. Now, White House advisers say, that is exactly what is happening.

“The reason they didn’t want the ground invasion and asked all the questions is they feared this is the consequence — the situation inside Gaza would only get worse for the people there, and that would lead to escalation,” said a person familiar with the administration’s thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity to relay private conversations. “They’re just trying different ways of, ‘How do you mitigate a set of actions that are inevitable and won’t work and will fail?' ”

Critics of the Biden administration, including many Arab and Muslim Americans, argue that the United States has enormous financial leverage over Israel and could impose far more pressure if it chose.


Washington is Israel’s largest military backer, and the White House has asked Congress for an additional $14 billion in aid for Israel in the wake of the Hamas attacks. But administration officials and advisers say the levers the United States theoretically has over Israel, such as conditioning military aid on making the military campaign more targeted, are nonstarters, partly because they would be so politically unpopular in any administration and partly because, aides say, Biden himself has a personal attachment to Israel.
Others say that Israelis are so driven by anger and grief after the killings that even the threat of an aid pullback would have little effect. And Netanyahu, an already embattled leader whose political position is imperiled further by the attacks, may feel compelled to hit back in a hard and devastating way.


“Of course the United States has leverage — we provide Israel with $4 billion a year in grant aid,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked on Middle East issues in the Clinton administration. “But every American administration, going back to the 1970s, has been loath to use that leverage because it would be highly unpopular.”
Riedel added: “I’m sure they say all the right things — ‘You have to abide by the rules of international law’ — but in practice, there’s more and more anger across the Arab and Muslim worlds at Israel and at us. It will come at a price.”
The Biden administration now finds itself with little influence over a key ally whose military campaign could affect everything from the global economy to America’s diplomatic relationships in the region.
“They’re watching a train wreck, and they can’t do anything about it, and the trains are speeding up,” said a person familiar with the administration’s thinking, who requested anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “The train wreck is in Gaza, but the explosion is in the region. They know that even if they were to do something, which is to condition aid to Israel, it won’t actually stop the Israelis from what they’re doing.”
 
Raoul said:
Not sure if this is the best analogy since Hamas have their own food/water/fuel supplies underground. Not to mention shelter in an underground city. Obviously, its the civilians on the surface who will bear the brunt of everything during a siege.
Click to expand...
Think you missed the point. Alexander had a similar issue, major tunnels (the tunnel thing is a long and testes idea, posing problems not just to Israel now, but for thousands of years, and believe or not, in the same place) and a very difficult area to take, while not losing to many soldiers. Alexander had the same problem as the IDF, take the fechers, but don't destroy your army. The answer is siege. No matter how deep they are berried, make sure they are contained. And from there, it is siege. No matter how much food they have, it is not forever. It took the Macedonian army and Alexander 100 days. So it's not easy. But the way to take out a rat has been clear for a long time.

I just hope the IDF will do just this rather then to much bombing in some sort of effort to prove to the Israel population like he (the PM) is a "powerful" lieder.

I feel like as soon as the hamas thing is over, the Israel PM needs to end up in jail or worse.
 
jackal&hyde said:
I just hope the IDF will do just this rather then to much bombing in some sort of effort to prove to the Israel population like he (the PM) is a "powerful" lieder.
Click to expand...

It’s not about proving he is a powerful leader. It is most likely one of 2 things:

1) pressuring the population into helping the IDF in its War vs Hamas.

2) pressuring them into moving South… So Israel can take over the North and keep it… Or worse making them so desperate they end up giving up on Gaza and storm the gates to Egypt.
 
Pintu said:
It’s not about proving he is a powerful leader. It is most likely one of 2 things:

1) pressuring the population into helping the IDF in its War vs Hamas.

2) pressuring them into moving South… So Israel can take over the North and keep it… Or worse making them so desperate they end up giving up on Gaza and storm the gates to Egypt.
Click to expand...
It is 100% not nr. 2. If you ask most people from Israel or even Jews they could care less for a bit more land, on the contrary, they would give it to Egypt, or the US or EU or literally anyone just so someone takes responsibility. One of the main issues is that no one can take this little piece of land and it's many people under arm.

For point nr. 1. Netanyahu is a man with out a future no matter what. It matters not how the conflict ends, he is gone. The population is not not behind him, it is behind a situation at war. As soon as Hamas terror group dies, the PM is let go.
 
Pintu said:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/white-house-resigned-israel-onslaught-gaza/

White House frustrated by Israel’s onslaught but sees few options

U.S. calls for a bombing pause are having little effect, and the shape of the post-war Mideast is starkly uncertain

U.S. efforts to get Israel to scale back its counterattack in response to the Oct. 7 killings by Hamas that left at least 1,400 Israelis dead have failed or fallen short. The Biden administration urged Israel against a ground invasion,privately asked it to consider proportionality in its attacks, advocated a higher priority on avoiding civilian deaths, and called for a humanitarian pause — only for Israeli officials to dismiss or reject all those suggestions.

U.S. officials had hoped there could be regular bombing pauses so that humanitarian and aid workers could safely operate in Gaza, according to a U.S. official familiar with the discussions. But securing such an arrangement seemed further out of reach after Blinken’s visit.

But from the outset, White House officials have been skeptical that an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza would achieve its stated aim of eliminating Hamas and feared that it would only lead to further escalation and destabilization. Now, White House advisers say, that is exactly what is happening.

“The reason they didn’t want the ground invasion and asked all the questions is they feared this is the consequence — the situation inside Gaza would only get worse for the people there, and that would lead to escalation,” said a person familiar with the administration’s thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity to relay private conversations. “They’re just trying different ways of, ‘How do you mitigate a set of actions that are inevitable and won’t work and will fail?' ”

Critics of the Biden administration, including many Arab and Muslim Americans, argue that the United States has enormous financial leverage over Israel and could impose far more pressure if it chose.


Washington is Israel’s largest military backer, and the White House has asked Congress for an additional $14 billion in aid for Israel in the wake of the Hamas attacks. But administration officials and advisers say the levers the United States theoretically has over Israel, such as conditioning military aid on making the military campaign more targeted, are nonstarters, partly because they would be so politically unpopular in any administration and partly because, aides say, Biden himself has a personal attachment to Israel.
Others say that Israelis are so driven by anger and grief after the killings that even the threat of an aid pullback would have little effect. And Netanyahu, an already embattled leader whose political position is imperiled further by the attacks, may feel compelled to hit back in a hard and devastating way.


“Of course the United States has leverage — we provide Israel with $4 billion a year in grant aid,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked on Middle East issues in the Clinton administration. “But every American administration, going back to the 1970s, has been loath to use that leverage because it would be highly unpopular.”
Riedel added: “I’m sure they say all the right things — ‘You have to abide by the rules of international law’ — but in practice, there’s more and more anger across the Arab and Muslim worlds at Israel and at us. It will come at a price.”
The Biden administration now finds itself with little influence over a key ally whose military campaign could affect everything from the global economy to America’s diplomatic relationships in the region.
“They’re watching a train wreck, and they can’t do anything about it, and the trains are speeding up,” said a person familiar with the administration’s thinking, who requested anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “The train wreck is in Gaza, but the explosion is in the region. They know that even if they were to do something, which is to condition aid to Israel, it won’t actually stop the Israelis from what they’re doing.”
Click to expand...


Should have just read red cafe. Situation is utterly hopeless. There is actually something they can do though in my opinion. But it may be politically impossible
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


Big voting contingents from the Bedouin and Druze too. And Jews in increasing numbers vote for them. Some, like Major Ashraf are already being lionised after10/7 but the government still can’t treat them right. There has to be some rejigging internally after all this, the country must recognise its citizens and they are central to that effort.
 
JPRouve said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...
France had its own way and weight in international matters in general and the palestinian question in particular.

Despite its lack of weight, France had a voice that was listened to and appreciated in the arab world. Partly due to its colonial past and relations to the new arab countries, and but mostly because an international policy initially defined by De Gaulle who didn't want to see France, and Europe by extension, chained to the US. Hence his initial resistance to the inclusion of Britain into what will become the EU, which he saw as the US Trojan Horse, and his contempt about the UN.

I think that Sarkozy destroyed this "third path" with his disastrous adventure in Lybia. The 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris buried it. There's also been no french statesman worth their salt since Chirac, for all his flaws. Sarkozy was a wheeler-dealer, Hollande was elected because he wasn't Sarkozy, just like Biden wasn't Trump. Macron, well, you know much more about him than I do. I logged out of french politics after Hollande was elected.

C'est ce que je pense personellement. Si je raconte des conneries, tu es libre de me corriger.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
I don't understanding your 82 figure or your figures in general. First the 333 for the British army are investigations not prosecutions and the similar figures for the IDF in 2021 are anything between 1574 which is the amount of inquiries and 514 which is the amount of soldiers that actually received treatment due to sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
There’s also this:

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/7/10/palestinian-children-abused-in-israeli-detention-ngo


Palestinian children abused in Israeli detention: NGO
Some of the abuses are sexual in nature, in addition to being beaten, handcuffed and blindfolded, a report says.


The study said 86 percent of the 228 former child detainees surveyed were beaten in detention, and 69 percent were strip-searched, adding that 42 percent were injured at the point of arrest, including gunshot wounds and broken bones.

They were also interrogated at unknown locations without the presence of a guardian or caregiver and are often deprived of food, water and sleep, the report says.

The report says: “The main alleged crime for these detentions is stone-throwing, which can carry a 20-year sentence in prison for Palestinian children.

There was another report I’ve posted about which showed that 40% of Palestinian children detained by the Israelis are sexually abused. It seems to be a bit of a theme with the Israeli IDF/Police force.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
And that's how we end up with this horrific and tragic situation. Neither side is willing to budge enough to work out a deal for peace as both side's hardliners and nutjobs are too empowered.

Realistically speaking, the Camp David agreement was the best deal the Palestinians were ever likely to get from that point on. As you mention, even a majority polled thought Barak gave up too much so there is zero chance the demands that would have satisfied Arafat and company would have been possible. At least the Camp David agreement would have tempered the most abhorrent of Israeli policies and provided a platform of peace to build on which most likely would have been better than where we are now.

It's possible in some alternate reality where Rabin was not assassinated, that there could have been a better agreement for Palestinians but realistically in this world, Camp David seems like the last fork in the history of the region that offered a chance to avoid where we are now. As soon as Hamas took control of Gaza there was never going to be a good outcome.
This should also include when Sharon-Netanyahu took control of Israel as well a good outcome was never going to happen

I don't see how anyone can see where we are now and confidently say, in hindsight, that Arafat was right to reject everything. I think most neutral historians will look at Arafat's decision as a big mistake.
Click to expand...
It's all ifs and buts, but Arafat signing what would've been considered an absolute capitulation, would have destroyed the PA for good and empowered the extremists even more. @2cents has rightly, imo, mentioned that both Arafat and Barak were prisoners of societal mechanisms and expectations that made them unable to compromise and I think that it's a fair assessment. I personally refuse the easy and very common trope that holds Arafat for sole culprit in the failure of Camp David and believe that it is a simplistic (and biased) reading of what was happening back then.

No it wouldn't, no matter how many would love it to be the case and find it easier to shift the responsibility to the Arabs Palestinians. Palestine would still not be considered, nor recognized, nor function a state. Israel still had the upper hand and absolute control on palestininan territories and there was nothing done or said about further settlements. The worst of it is that any further revendications from the Palestinian side would've considered been null and void as the proposed accords expressly stated and insisted on. If you can't see that, and why so many wars of independence were fought without compromising on such basic principles, then there's nothing to discuss any further.

There's no two ways about ending this tragedy. Either have two states or exterminate the Palestinians. Anything else is wishful thinking and Israel will never have peace.
 
Last edited:
That_Bloke said:
There's no two ways about ending this tragedy. Either have two states or exterminate the Palestinians. Anything else is wishful thinking and Israel will never have peace.
Click to expand...

How? This is the only game in town but I don’t even know how we get to the game. Assuming they got their own state, how would it be prevented from becoming an Iranian proxy full of extremists (which due to current events will be many), and how would Israel be prevented from consistently bombing and invading it to hunt those proxies/extremists? I don’t see any upside for Israel in a 2 state solution any more. And I don’t know if that state would look much different from Gaza now.

Left with the two states being practically impossible, and extermination beyond the pale, you can see why some are advocating for removal as a logical choice. To not think it’s logical, you have to believe 2 states can work. I’m willing to be convinced but currently I see no hope for it. It would for starters be a far worse deal than Arafat got, so you’d assume impossible politically for the PA? (Given the security concerns are now greater, and the us/Israeli sphere still tend to think that was a “good” deal)
 
Catching up...

VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


So that's the kind of non-Likud nutjob that Netanyahu has to enlist in his coalition, huh? He should have been expelled from the cabinet after that comment if it wasn't for Netanyahu still needing his support in forming that parody of a government.

owlo said:
Click to expand...

The United said:
I was just looking at the full clip earlier. He said a lot more and the full clip had more context on what he wanted to say.

Click to expand...


Can't ask for any clearer from Bernie. Of course, he will always sound idealistic, but that's who he is. Very good points nonetheless.

jackal&hyde said:
It is 100% not nr. 2. If you ask most people from Israel or even Jews they could care less for a bit more land, on the contrary, they would give it to Egypt, or the US or EU or literally anyone just so someone takes responsibility. One of the main issues is that no one can take this little piece of land and it's many people under arm.

For point nr. 1. Netanyahu is a man with out a future no matter what. It matters not how the conflict ends, he is gone. The population is not not behind him, it is behind a situation at war. As soon as Hamas terror group dies, the PM is let go.
Click to expand...

Even so, I think that Israel's best chance at enacting point no. 1 and finishing off Hamas requires Netanyahu to get the boot first and thus the change of strategy can be operated. Hopefully, that change of strategy will also put a priority at getting rid of Hamas leaders living in their luxury abroad.

edit: Having seen a lot of news about Blinken meeting so many Arab leaders in recent days, I only hope there is groundwork for something constructive down the road. Perhaps Rashida Tlaib can start shutting her mouth while people in better positions of power and knowledge than hers are working around the clock to find solutions on the ground.
 
Last edited:
owlo said:
How? This is the only game in town but I don’t even know how we get to the game. Assuming they got their own state, how would it be prevented from becoming an Iranian proxy full of extremists (which due to current events will be many), and how would Israel be prevented from consistently bombing and invading it to hunt those proxies/extremists? I don’t see any upside for Israel in a 2 state solution any more. And I don’t know if that state would look much different from Gaza now.

Left with the two states being practically impossible, and extermination beyond the pale, you can see why some are advocating for removal as a logical choice. To not think it’s logical, you have to believe 2 states can work. I’m willing to be convinced but currently I see no hope for it. It would for starters be a far worse deal than Arafat got, so you’d assume impossible politically for the PA? (Given the security concerns are now greater, and the us/Israeli sphere still tend to think that was a “good” deal)
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, but this is where we part ways.

You reasoning is driven by fear and an utterly condescending, colonialist line of thought. Not consciously, I want to believe, but you do not consider the Palestinians as a people worthy of any kind of independence. You might have your reasons for believing it, but that's where you and I fundamentally disagree. You're using every single trope that was used to justify slavery and colonies. Too dangerous, not advanced, educated or civilized enough to be granted autonomy. These people need to be controlled for their own good or simply displaced far enough to represent any danger, if not exterminated. They just can't be trusted or they'll stab you in the back, if given the opportunity.

I believe in a two state solutions and peace for all the Jews and the Arabs in the region. I will always do. It is ironically much better for Israel to deal with. If Palestine as a state, was indeed harboring terrorists and hell bent on destroying Israel, it would be politically much easier to handle in the eyes of the international community rather than having a bunch of defenseless, stateless people occupied, oppressed and then bombed into oblivion. You'd destroy the image of Israel as a bully. Cutting the grass under the feet of your enemy and all that.

I'm not willing to discuss with you the benefits of ethnic cleansing any further. That you, as a Jew, advocate it is a sad state of affairs.
 
Last edited:
So Jordan who already called their ambassador from Tel Aviv are now defying the Israeli imposed siege on Gaza in order to keep their field hospital from shutting down.

 
Pintu said:
So Jordan who already called their ambassador from Tel Aviv are now defying the Israeli imposed siege on Gaza in order to keep their field hospital from shutting down.

Click to expand...


Nah it was obviously in coordination in Israel.
 
owlo said:
As a Jew, I consider those ethnically cleansed before/during WWII to be the lucky ones. Had the ethnic cleansing been more aggressive and faster, less would have died. I wish there had been far more. The Jews largely didn't go in the 30s because they were stubborn bastards who believed they would never get slaughtered and things would get better, and they paid the ultimate price. And the Nazis ended up having to kill the Jews because they have nowhere to realistically put them. Ethnic cleansing has traditionally been a positive for Jews throughout history too, from Edward I throughout medieval times. Slaughter was sometimes followed by expulsion, but often it was the other way around as they would move before they could be slaughtered. Jews have been running for 2000 years; by and large the biggest death counts and highest brutality have been when they didn't know when to run. (Lets not forget the punishment in Palestine itself after they managed to destroy [probably] two legions.) You could easily frame the Bar Kokhba struggle as similar to the Palestinian one and look how that ended for the Jews... And as a sailor in modern times I've seen people protected from slaughter by running. I respect that you have a completely different outlook on it but I genuinely believe it can sometimes be the best option.

It's not that I believe they aren't worthy of it, it's that I believe it can't realistically happen for the reasons I stated. I didn't say they aren't civilized enough, just that they won't get it. Lebanon barely have autonomy, and Israel attacks whenever it chooses with regularity. Why would a Palestinian state be any different? And why would a Palestinian state already in the grip of Iran be any more resistant to their influence than other states in the region? It's not about them needing to be controlled for their own good, its just what would happen. The bolded though I'll grant you is true in my eyes, and will be for a generation or more now.

Would you say a state on the lines of the Camp David agreement be acceptable now? Because it wouldn't ever get any better for the forseeable future. Even if you could get them to the table and get rid of Bibi, Israel could barely offer that much, certainly not more.
Click to expand...
Palestians dont deserve their own state?

Pro genocide arguement.

Your posts are awful on this thread.
 
The Corinthian said:
There’s also this:

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/7/10/palestinian-children-abused-in-israeli-detention-ngo


Palestinian children abused in Israeli detention: NGO
Some of the abuses are sexual in nature, in addition to being beaten, handcuffed and blindfolded, a report says.


The study said 86 percent of the 228 former child detainees surveyed were beaten in detention, and 69 percent were strip-searched, adding that 42 percent were injured at the point of arrest, including gunshot wounds and broken bones.

They were also interrogated at unknown locations without the presence of a guardian or caregiver and are often deprived of food, water and sleep, the report says.

The report says: “The main alleged crime for these detentions is stone-throwing, which can carry a 20-year sentence in prison for Palestinian children.

There was another report I’ve posted about which showed that 40% of Palestinian children detained by the Israelis are sexually abused. It seems to be a bit of a theme with the Israeli IDF/Police force.
Click to expand...
Utterly Awful. Palestianuam children dont matter to them do they? 4000 dead from the bombing. Its a irrelevant number to them. They dont care.

Its a innocent child for gods sake. They dont hold political views. They want to play and have fun. Not be bombed to death for something that they had nothing to do with. sigh.
 
Ezra Klein just had on a Palestinian pollster whose last poll, coincidentally, wrapped up Oct 6th. It's really interesting, basically Hamas' leadership only has just over a quarter of support amongst polled Gazans. The opposition (?) leader a similar amount and the most popular figure is currently in jail in Israel for terrorism. She was keen to say the main reason he was viewed as popular is that he ran as very anti-corruption: similar reason why Hamas was elected in the first place.

But it does say to me that the two-state solution is basically f*cked. How do you convince Israel that either Hamas or a leader that is literally in jail right now for terrorism is a safe bet? The Iranian leadership must be dancing a jig every day with how things are going.

I totally agree with the piece posted about America just not being able to stop this rogue Netanyahu extremism. That's exactly what I've been trying to say. He is a monster, acting basically without mandate to try and (in my opinion) genocide a people before he's ousted because like all sad old men he has a version of his legacy in his head that he's trying to live out. I wish we'd see more Israeli protests, I wish we'd see the Knesset do something but this is also a country in mourning and in shock.

In a perfect world, I'd love to see Biden fall on his damn sword for two reasons: 1 he's too f*cking old and 2 someone needs to and it's really just him. Forget the political consequences, just come out and call out Netanyahu. Keep solidarity with Israel, with Jews both in and out of America but call this out for what it is: a huge, bloody, unforgiveable reaction. Then kindly retire gracefully and let someone else beat Trump, because this would be 10x worse if the GOP actually had to do some diplomacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.