Israel describes a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as a ‘nonstarter,’ undermining Biden’s proposal
Israel describes a permanent cease-fire in Gaza as a ‘nonstarter,’ undermining Biden’s proposal
What exactly is a permanent ceasefire?
Israel didn't start this latest war. If they sign a permanent ceasefire and Hamas attacks them again, would they not be able to fight back?
I'm pretty sure Hamas has no plans to stop attacking Israel even after a ceasefire, they haven't after any of the previous ones...
It seems someone has not educated themselves on history of what Israel has been doing (1948-2022).
Just because you do not read about it in the main news, it doesn’t mean that nothing has happened. That’s all I have to say.
It seems you're that uneducated someone; given that FIVE neighboring Arab countries invaded Israel the day after the British left and it declared independence because they were unhappy with the lines that were drawn up by the UN after WW2.
Israel didn't start shit.
You sound very upset, aggressive and making it immensely personal. I did not expect anything else from Israel supporters.
There’s a very reason they started to attack Israel the day Israel became an actual state but you purposefully left that out of the way.
So I will quote my old, old comment to you and leave it at that. Because there’s no civil discussion with Israel supporters.
Not only that, you suddenly started to bring the past into the discussion when you were first writing about 7th of October 2023 and beyond that. So you Purposefully trying to create confusion. After my quotation, I won’t comment to you anymore.
Israel became an actual state in 1948 by displacing 750 000 Palestinian people and murdering many (men, women and children). Laying sieges, bombarding villages and population centers, setting fires to homes, properties and goods. Planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled people from returning (source: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by ilan Pappé).
Hamas did not exist until 1987, they became an actual group only in 1987 because of all the horrifying things Israel had done from 1948 up until 1987. Which is approximately 40 years after what Israel had done to the Palestinian people.
Because israel never planned to respect the partition. The first prime prime minister before the 1948 war said
“After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
And yet, they aren't the ones that started it.
It's amazing how many backflips people will do trying to defend the Muslim attacks on Jewish people in that area over the last five centuries, while simultaneously saying that Jewish attacks are bad.
Jewish people in that region were legally second class citizens, with different legal rules, of the previous empires behind Muslims.
So they should have waited for israel to attack first? This quote shows that they always planned to steal palestinian land in the future so it's completely legitimate to stop it before it happen. It's about jews and muslims it's just about foreigners succeding in building a state in an already populate place
Yes, North Korea threatens South Korea and Japan all the time, but an invasion wouldn't be justified just because they threaten.
The present shows that they was right, despite the absence of resistance in the west bank israel is still expanding the illegal settlments and stealing palestinian homes. Even if you believe arabs was wrong to start the war, it doesn't give israel the right to destroy villages that surrendred like the village of tantura, force displacing people and occupy more land forever
What does that have to do with Gaza?
It wasn't the people in the west bank that attacked Israel to start this latest fight, and as much as people seem to think gaza and the west bank are the same people, they really aren't. They don't have the same government, military, or live under the same conditions, they have different economies, and even different cultures at this point.
And I disagree, if you get attacked, and successfully fight back, you should be able to take land as your own. This has historically happened after most wars, for example massive changes from pre-war borders occurred after WW1 and WW2 as land was given to the victors/victims. Similarly, I would have no problem with Ukraine pushing into Russia and capturing territory at this point. The consequences of invading shouldn't be losing nothing but your pride.
So why israel is also attacking the west bank? Both gaza and westbank are part of palestine. Just because explusions happen don't make it right. Whst about the opposite if ukraine lose will you also think it's ok for it to become part of russia. Was the past expulsions of jews justifiable for being weak and whatever excuse was used to do so?
Palestine has never existed as a country or had agreed upon borders. The UN resolution setting it's borders was never agreed upon by the Palestinian or Arab side. So why should they have borders, if they refused to agree to borders that were actually more generous that what they have now and instead just attacked Israel?
Ukraine is an established country with established and recognized borders. So no, Russia can't keep parts of it.
Not to mention that the state of Israel exists today thanks of Jewish terrorism. Read a bit of history and the events preceding the founding of Israel.
The state of Israel exists because the UN made it so when they broke up the Ottoman empire after WW2.
Are you calling WW2 Jewish terrorism?
WW2 started with the attack on Poland, 1st September 1939. By that date, Irgun had already bombed plenty of civilians. The Ottoman empire was broken up after WW1, not WW2.
Perhaps you should educate yourself before opening your mouth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing.
Tell me that this isn't a terrorist attack, and mind you this isn't the only one. So in a way the Jewish state exists today due to Jewish terrorism.
By your logic, the US exists because of American terrorism.
In fact almost every country would exist because of terrorism.
The USA got to do a genocide, so we get to do a genocide! Why are people so unhappy about this? "Never again" just means against us, right? We can still do it?
If both are bad, why is the US not being required to make up for their genocide?
Calling for one to be disallowed, while continuing to allow the results from the other is hypocrisy. It's not like the US couldn't give back the land if the same level of will we see towards Gaza existed for native Americans. That's never going to happen though, Americans are completely comfortable with the results of their genocide at this point.
There's a huge movement to do so that. Look into land back rights and all that. But the Israel Palestine thing is more urgent because it's better to stop a genocide from happening in progress right now, then to make up for one that has already happened. The only people comfortable with America's genocide are the same right wing and centrist people supporting Israel right now.
No there isn't. There's a TINY movement to do that, and it's never going to happen.
They're comfortable saying we should do something, until it would cost them something personally.
You'll find almost every American becomes very comfortable with the genocide very quickly when you start talking about taking away their home to give the land back.
Close, the us exists because a bunch of europeans moved to a new land and ethnically cleansed the natives.
Pretty sure the US part involved attacking the British government.
Yes.
That's the main issue with colonial-settler states - they colonize the land (via terror and extermination) and then settle either in borders they've drawn up (or even outside if there's not enough resistance)
Using past native American genocide to justify the current native Levant genocide isn't the trump card you think it is...
And we can go on a whole debate around "oh but other states got to establish their borders this way in the past - why doesn't Israel get to do the same?" - because we're supposed to be more civilized by now and understand that killing people to take their land is an extremely inhumane and reductionist point of view.
The whole phrasing around "a land without people for people without a land" is the same native population erasing shit the European settlers used to colonize the Americas.
If Israel wants to be a brutal colonial state - it gets to decide that - but at least be honest and don't pretend it has some sort of divine right to do so while expecting to not be met with resistance.
If Israel really wanted a land for its people (while not infringing on the rights of Arabs already living there) they could have assimilated into the already existing population where they are just one of the people living on that territory and not gone for the nuclear option of total dominion over everyone else.
Which is why Israel is so afraid of Hamas and the general resistance - because it understands the world from a dominator-dominee perspective - they cannot envision a world where somebody doesn't try and take over Israel in return for them doing the same. Since if "every country exists because of terrorism" then the Arabs have as much right to terror and conquest as anyone else - but I doubt you would you defend their rights to do as fervently as Israel's....
So instead a much less bloody way forward would be to work on dismantling borders for the benefit of everyone instead of stockpiling more and more guns while waiting for the inevitable boom...
The problem with your argument, is that you want to continue to allow the results of the past native American genocide, while disallowing the results of the Israeli conflict. That's hypocrisy.
Nah - i want both the west and Israel to pay reparations and return as much of the land as possible (not just some nature reserves as pittance) while also apologizing and commemorating the ones that have been displaced.
I wasn't around when the native American genocide was happening to "disallow" the outcome - but i sure can do something about the one going on right now instead of throwing my hands up and going "well same thing happened with slavery, so I guess we should just sit around and do nothing" while crying "hypocrisy!" - just because bad things occurred in the past isn't an excuse to keep doing bad things in the future...
You can do something about the native American genocide now, but you won't because it's a hardship for you. If someone asked you to give back the land you own for free, you'd fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
It's still hypocrisy to call for other people to fix a wrong, while you refuse to do the same. If you won't deal with it, they shouldn't have to either.
If someone asked you to give back the land you own for free, you'd fight tooth and nail to prevent it.
As these are words you are trying to put in my mouth - I can only assume it's your stance on the issue, in which case if you claim to not be hypocritical then you have to admit to also supporting Palestine's right to land sovereignty, right? And one could argue their claim is more valid as they weren't the ones that explicitly took the decision to appropriate somebody else's land by force.
Also I'm not even from the US but because like most countries, mine has had a history of both being occupied and occupying other people's land - I am a supporter of a no borders policy, inheritance abolishment and wealth redistribution, starting from the ones that have extracted the most and giving to the ones that have been exploited the most (and I'm more than willing to distribute my fair share)
Which is why I am actively doing everything in my power to "fix a wrong" both domestically (supporting immigrants and locals and fighting for land reform policies) and internationally (pressuring governments to stop engaging in colonial practices)
So "If you won't deal with it, they shouldn't have to either." doesn't even apply here but I'd still warn against that kind of thinking as a certain "nationalist" used very similar rhetoric to claim that if the US were allowed to put native Americans in internment camps, so was he...
What exactly is a permanent ceasefire?
The South Korea-North Korea ceasefire has been in place since 1953
They've literally shot at each other hundreds of times, including killing people and sinking ships.
North Korea is actively shitting (literally) on South Korea right now, by dropping feces using balloons.
What part of that is a ceasefire? It's more of a stalemate.
