speaker_hat @ speaker_hat @lemmy.one

Posts

46

Comments

418

Joined

2 yr. ago

The ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its death toll

So this is not a reliable source.

As long as this war doesn't end, more casualties from both sides occur.

More like "We know Hamas destroys you, we want to help you destroy Hams and also help us to find the hostages"

Thank you very much.

Thanks for the explanation.

Let me rephrase my comment:

Netanyahu is doing the right move by putting his country’s security above all by delaying the establishment of Palestinian state or sovereignty.

I didn't advocate for Palestinian demolish.

This is why I didn't agree with the above post sophisticated "flipped logic" comment.

I'll state again: Palestinians don't look for peace nor a state. They look to undo the what so called "Nakba", a thing that will happen as long as Israel exists.

First, thank you for the detailed response, which I'll response to as such.

When Netanyahu just decided to ignore the Oslo accords after Rabin was assassinated.

At that time, Shimon Peres was the prime minister of Israel, so Netanyahu's stand wasn't even relevant. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Israel)

Anyway,

Negotiations on further terms continued, with Peres continuing to be an integral player. On 28 September 1995, Rabin and Arafat jointly signed a second major agreement, which has popularly been referred to as "Oslo II"

("Oslo II" created the Areas A, B and C in the West Bank, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_II_Accord. However, these areas still have Palestinian terror acts)

I wonder why Palestinians didn’t want their land to be stolen and used to build an Apartheid state.

Palestinians, at that time, didn't had ownership over the area of Palestine. because it was an official Mandate of the United Kingdom. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine)

Apartheid state

How's Israel an apartheid state when it has 21% Arabs citizens from the Palestinian origin?

The "1937 - Peel commission" is an Investigation of the causes of the 1936 Arab revolt in Palestine, which in short was an uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against the British demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration.

The Arabs of that time didn't have any stand of the Jewish immigration, as it was under the British auspices.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

Same argument is relevant for "1947 - Partition resolution".

TL;DR: Israel’s Camp David terms were so horrible that as long as they didn’t budge on them (which they didn’t; the idea that Arafat didn’t compromise is Israeli propaganda) no sane Palestinian would accept them.

In 2000 Camp David Summit, "The Palestinian negotiators indicated they wanted full Palestinian sovereignty over the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip". (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit)

The Palestinians received sovereignty over Gaza strip at 5 years later in 2005. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza).

Guess what happened just 18 years later, from that Palestinian sovereignty? You guessed right, Hamas 07/10 massacre.

Since the offer went on behind the scenes, nobody actually knows what happened, so I won’t comment on it.

OK.

You didn't reply on the rest of the peace rejection, so I'll consider them to be agreed otherwise stated.

Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected

This sentence, and the list you provided, strengthening and supporting what I wrote on my comment above:

Palestinians don’t look for peace.

They only look for undoing the what so called “Nakba”, a thing that will never happen, as long as Israel exists.

Neighboring Jordan and Egypt are secured, so your comment is false. Why they are secured you asked? Because they want peace and accept it, in contrast to the ones who don't want it.

Even though your comment is false, let give it a try.

In Israel there are 21% Arabs with Palestinian origin, do you want to get rid of them as well? If not let me know your sophisticated "getting rid of" partition (hint: antisemitism will be reported).

All of the Palestinian economy and Arabs living in Israel are based on the Israeli economy and currency (New Israeli Shekel), getting rid of Israel meaning destroying these people economy (which will only lead to more crime and terror, see Syria as an example).

The United States and Israel have signed multiple bilateral defense cooperation agreements, to include: a Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994).

So "getting rid of Israel" will be required to win also the US army. Source: https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/

Oh, and Israel has a nuke, so the ones that will try to "get rid of it" will be nuked immediately as a last resort solution, which is a loose-loose situation.

they’ll need to be forced by either Palestinians themselves, the Arab world or the international community.

It didn't work for 75 years, and only causes bloodshed from both sides, and the delay of a Palestinian state.

This became obvious in 1996

Unfortunately I don't understand the 1996 reference.

Israel has never looked for peace. Again see 1996.

Per by this comment, here is a list of peace offers which would grant the Palestinians a country of their own, they refused all of them (total of 22 offers):

1937 - Peel commission, rejected

1947 - Partition resolution, rejected

2000 - Camp David, rejected

2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.

2008 - Olmert offer, rejected

Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new ‘policy document’ accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103

Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected

1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.

1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.

1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.

1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.

1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected

1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.

1949: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.

1967: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.

1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).

1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).

1995: Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.

2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.

2005: Sharon’s peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.

2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.

2009 to 2021: Netanyahu’s repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.

2014: Kerry’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.

Not gonna link Trump’s imbecilic peace plan as an example.

Here is a list of peace offers the Palestinians offered to Israel -

None

I don't agree. Especially when your comment isn't article post based nor sources based.

And Israel is an established independent country, you can't just "rid of" a country.

TLDR; Hamas massacre was a wrong move that delays the establishment of a Palestinian state.

after Hamas is destroyed, Israel must retain security control over Gaza to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel, a requirement that contradicts the demand for Palestinian sovereignty

Israel would need to keep security control of all land west of the River Jordan. “That’s a necessary condition. It clashes with the principle of sovereignty but what can you do.

Netanyahu is doing the right move by putting his country's security above all.

A Palestinian sovereignty cannot be established because by all means it's a threat to Israel's security.

As an example, Hamas 07/10 massacre launched from a Palestinian sovereignty, called Gaza (Gaza received it's sovereignty just 18 years ago).

The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause.

The quest for a Palestinian state is by all means not peaceful. It's brutal full of bloodshed from both sides.

As Keir Starmer has said, it is the undeniable right of the Palestinian people, and the only path to guarantee a just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

Palestinians don't look for peace, and as a consequence of this war, Israel is also don't.

The Palestinians only look for undoing the what so called "Nakba", a thing that will never happen, as long as Israel exists.

And Israel is looking for a security, by all means.

The UK’s position is very clear. A two-state solution, with a viable and sovereign Palestinian state living alongside a safe and secure Israel, is the best route to lasting peace.

Palestinian sovereign living alongside Israel = Israel is NOT safe and NOT secure.

As I wrote earlier, the Palestinians are not looking for peace.

The US has repeatedly said that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is the only path to rebuilding Gaza and ensuring Israel’s long-term security.

Palestinian state is NOT the only path to Israel's long-term security.

After more than three months, Israeli attacks have killed nearly 25,000 Palestinians

This is a clue for this article bias, as they didn't separated the number of Hamas militant casualties from Palestinian civilians casualties.

It depends if it's in the cloud or not

I love OsmAnd so I purchased the OsmAnd+, I highly recommend

Do you mind to elaborate?

Because the post is for Wikipedia website, which is online

Unfortunately, I don't agree with your sentence modification.

Do you have a source for that?

I didn't get it

Why did you call your son Spez? Did Adolf recommend this name?

I'm not blaming the children, I'm blaming Hamas for bringing their children to the consequences that they face.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I agree that the fact that the Israeli government is currently far-right is a problem, and it's no making the war situation easier.

Both politicians you quoted, Nissim Vaturi and Eliyahu, are far-right in their vision and views, as a result they say such an extreme sayings.

However, they don't have any military influence and cannot have because of their position.

The ones who do have military power, didn't show intentions to do so.

IDF officially said from the beginning of this war that it can't guarantee journalists' safety in Gaza.

Both the links you provided are after the IDF warning.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-says-it-cant-guarantee-journalists-safety-gaza-2023-10-27/

Or children; because they cannot be part of Hamas, despite what your ridiculous logic says.

Gaza children play war in Hamas summer camp: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9Pw8SO0GOJU

However, I agree with your saying it's ridiculous.

Does that mean all Israelis 18 and above are lawful targets?

No. But for Hamas (according to the ten of thousands of rockets) the answer is yes.