Gaza/Israel Update (04/02): Israeli airstrike kills foreign workers of World Central Kitchen (Chef José Andrés food aid charity)

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Feel free to chime in with the resolution. 

 

you cant have right of return and a jewish state so one side has to give up a thing that is foundational to their identity

 

there is no resolution to the conflict that doesnt begin with the two sides resolving that

[Bacon]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

I assumed it was someone who's real username was banned

I suppose they could be, I hadn't thought about that. In that case, make a new account without the meme name. All of their takes are irrelevant to me because of that even should I agree.

[Spork3245]

Just now, UpvoteShittyTakesOnly said:

 

you cant have right of return and a jewish state so one side has to give up a thing that is foundational to their identity

 

there is no resolution to the conflict that doesnt begin with the two sides resolving that

 

Yes, I know, that's largely the problem, and it's also one of the (many) reasons why Hamas having 60% support in Gaza is extremely bad. The PLC in the West Bank at least recognizes Israel having a right to exist now and would seemingly be willing figure out a two state solution.

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

Yes, I know, that's largely the problem, and it's also one of the (many) reasons why Hamas having 60% support in Gaza is extremely bad. The PLC in the West Bank at least recognizes Israel having a right to exist now and would seemingly be willing figure out a two state solution.

 

has the plc talked about right of return from what you have read

[Spork3245]

Just now, UpvoteShittyTakesOnly said:

 

has the plc talked about right of return from what you have read

 

They certainly used to but I'm unsure of their current stance on it, as they currently believe in Israel and it's right to exist.

[SuperSpreader]

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

they currently believe in Israel and it's right to exist.

In the ocean

 

JK JK 

[Spork3245]

Probably worth noting that the PLO was a terrorist group committed to the end of Israel until about the late 1980s when Arafat took over.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Just put your cursor within the quotes and hit enter twice, my dude  

 

Well look at that. Thank you! 

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

I'm not saying that Palestine is necessarily the ones to offer a solution, but they should come to the table and engage in discussion. I am also certainly not saying they should "accept their current situation", they should have many things given to them in a negotiation. Also, while they aren't in a position to make demands, there would certainly be extreme international pressure on Israel should serious talks begin. Israel has given conquered/taken land back in the past (not Netanyahu, who, I must reiterate, is a turd).

 

If your suggestion is the bargaining table should be re-opened for new talks, I'm 100% with you. I don't know if you recall in the past however, but extreme international pressure in the past was often on Palestine to capitulate, not on Israel to be fair in negotiations, as I remember it anyway. 

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

I'm talking having discussions, not just blindly accepting whatever is thrown at them, and was mostly talking about the original resolution (which we both agree was not good). The main issue Palestinians had with it, IIRC, was that Israelis had slightly more land given than them - that was something, IMO, that could've been discussed and a solution could've been found... instead of war. (EDIT: Or was it that the Palestinians wanted it all and didn't want the Jews to have any of the land? I can't remember)

 

Israel wanted to keep the boundary lines they had gained from the 1967 war that was had rather than dialing it back to the 1948 Green Line demarcation of the two countries previously. As I recall that was the huge sticking point during negotiations, "slightly more land" is making small of the issue.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Bruh:

Sermon delivered by 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh, former Hamas minister of culture, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV, April 8, 2011:
"Whoever is killed by a Jew receives the reward of two martyrs, because the very thing that the Jews did to the prophets was done to him.

"The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah.

"Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world.

"The Jews kill anyone who believes in Allah. They do not want to see any peace whatsoever on Earth."

 

But you're quoting Hamas. I'm with you about Hamas. I'm saying the average Palestinian, if asked straight up, isn't going to say all Jews should die or shouldn't exist. During this situation I've asked some Palestinians currently in Palestine that I know through family friends and while some are very educated some are average and when I asked them: "do you agree with Hamas and do you not believe in the right of Jews to exist?" They said obviously they should exist, it's Israel that's causing problems.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

I strongly disagree with this and it goes back to the "it doesn't matter now with fixing things in 2023" comment I made. Stating that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, after it's existed for nearing 80 years, is just a bad take, IMO. In 1950 the argument held more water, but it's been a nation for too long for the argument to make sense now in any way that actual matters or helps anyone.

 

To be clear: I don't agree with the Palestinian sentiment that Israel doesn't have a right to exist any longer. It's been too long - it's too late. It exists, and has since May 1948. It's not my take, it's some Palestinians' takes, and all I'm saying is while it's not a good negotiating position, I understand the sentiment. All I was trying to draw was a distinction between saying "Jews don't have a right to exist" vs. "the state of Israel doesn't have a right to exist" which are two very different things.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Yes, it is unreasonable when you're not even making attempts at peace and your "anger" turns into killing civilians. I cannot nor will ever empathize with that.

 

As I said, I hate terrorism and abhor the targeting of civilians, all I'm saying is I understand broadly using guerilla warfare and asymmetrical tactics, which doesn't have to involve civilians per se. And again, Hamas is not Palestine. It's not even the Gaza Strip. It doesn't represent all Palestinians, who are not a monolithic group. Not that you're saying this, but I don't get  why everyone is saying: "oh, Israel suffered a horrific attack, their bloodlust now is totally understandable so if they go scorched Earth in na ground invasion I get it" but Palestinians have been attacked over and over for 75 years but their bloodlust is not understandable and if they go oscorched Earth (arguably this Hamas attack) it's not understandable?

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

To reiterate, I'm in no way stating that Palestinians come up with a peace deal and offer it, I'm saying they should be at the table and willing to talk, not to blindly accept a terrible deal.

 

Agreed - you'll get no argument from me. But I get the sense Israel isn't willing to wheel and deal either from what I understand.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

I already called him a turd multiple times and have said that this wasn't okay, though?

 

You did, and I'm with you! But he's controlled Israel for a long time and we're talking about solutions in 2023 so he's very relevant when discussing Israel-Palestine right now since he's in control of Israel.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

You know that not all of the land given to the Jews for Israel in that solution was where Palestinians already were, and that not all of the land given to Palestinians was were Jews weren't, right? Both were giving up land that both were already on.

 

Agreed, but under a country governed and controlled by the people who had lived there for a long while. It's all Palestinian land at the time, whether Jews lives there or not. The Jews aren't "giving up" any land. Palestine had the whole country and the UN gave Jews land. The Zionists before hand were just land owners under Palestine, not little Israels.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Except for the Jews that already lived there...?

 

Jews living there still makes it Palestinian land that Palestine should decide what to do with, not the UN. Just cause a Jewish person lives somewhere doesn't make it Israel.  

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

I never said nor implied any of this. Also, how can a peace deal happen if both sides don't agree to one? Israel can't sign a peace deal that's not accepted by or discussed with Palestine.

 

I agree with you - all I'm saying is Israel is just as if not more culpable for not making stronger attempts at resolving this issue given they're the ones clearly in the driver's seat, not Palestine. If Israel created a good enough deal that if the Palestinians refused everyone would side with Israel, it could be done. But they don't - because Israel wants all the land, I think that's pretty clear given they keep expanding over the decades. We can't just be unhappy with Palestinians saying they want all the land back (or at least all the land from the pre-1967 Green Line without also saying Israel has little interest in doing any of that and expanding instead. This is why neither side can come to an agreement. Either Palestine accepts the deals the US and Israel present them, which have all been unfair to one degree or another, or there's no deal. Again, Palestine has no bargaining power, so it's the US and Israel that needs to drive peace talks. Palestinians could say now: "okay, we've lost, we'll accept post-1967 borders" but again, they aren't winning in that negotiation, they are just giving up for shitty peace.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

An unauthorized invasion of people who were coexisting for 70 years prior to a name change.

 

Ask any Palestinian if it's as simple as a name change and they would probably lose it. An enormous influx of additional Jewish people on top of the Zionists who had come with the intention of slowly displacing Palestinians to begin with? I guess when white colonialists came to America and displaced the Native Americans and oppressed them but also tried to live alongside them and calling it America was just a name change? The actual effects of Israel becoming Israel was far, far more than a name change in practice. 

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Killing and kidnapping civilians is "fighting better"?

 

No, because Native Americans et. al. killed and kidnapped civilians too. White South Africans were absolutely targeted. But I meant fighting "better" by using what they have, like missiles and such. The Tibetans fought back but were barely an army with any technology. If Tibetans had missiles they could have fired into Guangzhang or whatever, they would have, absolutely.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Hamas has ~60% support from Gazans. At best, they support ones who do want death to all Jews. The average Palestinian doesn't if we're counting the West Bank, though, but as I previously mentioned, that's not a 1:1 comparison. 

 

Again, if the 60% who support Hamas from Gaza doesn't mean anything. Does every person who "supports" a political party buy into every extreme position they have? No. And when you've been forced to live a shit life your whole life and a group comes in promising to at least fight back (however horrifically), are you going to feel seen? Yes.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Israel doesn't purposely target civilians, they just don't care about civilians in the collateral. Both are bad, one is worse.

 

They absolutely have targeted civilians in the past. Or was targeting medics and hospitals in 2014 not that (that I posted about earlier in this thread - Amnesty International thought it could be considered war crimes)? And yes, treating civilians casualties as blatant collateral when you are the much more powerful military is bad.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Fatah was on the ballot and won in the West Bank.

 

Yep - again, a lot of factors go into who is voting and how. I'm simply explaining how radical groups get elected in these tough scenarios even wheen the people voting for the radical group aren't radical themselves, they just want to be heard/seen.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

The history comment wasn't necessarily directed at/towards you, it was more venting at the shit I've been seeing people say elsewhere.

 

Ah, all good. I think focusing on solutions is smart so I'm with you there.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

The Palestinians I mentioned living within the Israeli boarders have equal rights with Jews/Christians/other Arabs and are full Israeli citizens. The ones that are (well below) second-class citizens are the ones living in the West Bank and Gaza. And, the thing is... from my perspective, land is land - it was a name change more than anything. Neither group had full independence when it was under the British Mandate or even under the Ottomans, did they? 

 

Land is not land and name changes aren't just name changes. It's about religious or cultural domination, it's about destroying peoples' family legacies and their attachment to their ancestral homes. You have to understand that like a lot of countries, these are simple and poor people. All many have known their whole lives is where they were born and grew up. Israel is doing more than just taking land and changing a name. I think saying that is very dismissive of the very real intangible changes that come along with "land is just land" and "it's just a name change." I've always felt all random drawn boundary lines between countries is stupid and imaginary but there are very real reasons it matters, especially to marginalized and oppressed groups whose whole way of life might be snuffed out once they're all gone.

 

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

Look, if you've been following my posts ITT then you should know I do not think Israel is innocent in any way/shape/form, however, I reject the idea that Palestine is somehow some poor innocent victims that did nothing wrong. Both sides are culpable in all of this.

 

I don't think I said anywhere in this thread that the Palestinians are just victims in this whole affair. I don't think anyone in this thread had. I think all anyone has done is bother to make the distinction between Hamas and the average Palestinian civilian when it comes to the IDF's current bloodlust over a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip. But the culpability is not equal. If I was a lawyer in a state where law suits about car crashes was proportional in terms of damages (meaning the amount each side owes the other is proportionate to how responsible they are for the other person's damages), Israel would owe a lot more to Palestine than Palestine owes to Israel. While both sides are absolutely culpable, it's not close to equal.

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

8 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

They certainly used to but I'm unsure of their current stance on it, as they currently believe in Israel and it's right to exist.

 

i know at one point abbas suggested the right of return to a palestinian state in the pre 67 borders and hamas was like fuck no so it isnt as though there have never been leaders willing to budge of full right of return

 

but it has been the stickiest of sticking points in the actual peace talks for longer than any of us have been alive

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

24 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Palestine had the whole country

 

there were people of palestinian ethnicity living in the region there but it was the ottoman empire for 400 years and then the dumbass brits from ww1 until the founding of Israel so i dont follow this notion that palestine had it

 

and honestly this point makes sense of your entire pov as if your position is that the whole thing belonged to a state called palestine it is understandable that you might feel as you do

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

If your suggestion is the bargaining table should be re-opened for new talks, I'm 100% with you.

 

Yes.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't know if you recall in the past however, but extreme international pressure in the past was often on Palestine to capitulate, not on Israel to be fair in negotiations, as I remember it anyway. 

 

I believe that's before Palestinian leaders recognized Israel's right to exist, IIRC.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Israel wanted to keep the boundary lines they had gained from the 1967 war that was had rather than dialing it back to the 1948 Green Line demarcation of the two countries previously. As I recall that was the huge sticking point during negotiations, "slightly more land" is making small of the issue.

 

I was talking about (and only about) the original resolution proposed by the UN/British, not later ones.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

But you're quoting Hamas. I'm with you about Hamas. I'm saying the average Palestinian, if asked straight up, isn't going to say all Jews should die or shouldn't exist. During this situation I've asked some Palestinians currently in Palestine that I know through family friends and while some are very educated some are average and when I asked them: "do you agree with Hamas and do you not believe in the right of Jews to exist?" They said obviously they should exist, it's Israel that's causing problems.

 

Hamas has 60% support in Gaza, though, and 75% of Gazans support more extreme groups who also want all Jews dead. If you support the groups that have "all Jews must die" as their main platform, there's a high chance you probably also want dead Jews.  

I know you've brought up "well 70m+ Americans voted for Trump" but when did Trump as president have 60% approval ratings? You cannot easily separate the two in this instance when it comes to Gazans.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

To be clear: I don't agree with the Palestinian sentiment that Israel doesn't have a right to exist any longer. It's been too long - it's too late. It exists, and has since May 1948. It's not my take, it's some Palestinians' takes, and all I'm saying is while it's not a good negotiating position, I understand the sentiment. All I was trying to draw was a distinction between saying "Jews don't have a right to exist" vs. "the state of Israel doesn't have a right to exist" which are two very different things.

 

The two aren't always separate issues among many Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, is the problem.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

As I said, I hate terrorism and abhor the targeting of civilians, all I'm saying is I understand broadly using guerilla warfare and asymmetrical tactics, which doesn't have to involve civilians per se.

 

But their guerilla tactics are targeting civilians (and primarily at that). That's the problem.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

And again, Hamas is not Palestine. It's not even the Gaza Strip. It doesn't represent all Palestinians,

 

I'd certainly argue that Trump represents the average republican. 60% approval rating = majority are represented by them and their actions as far as I'm concerned.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

who are not a monolithic group. Not that you're saying this,

 

I'm not, and just to reiterate I've made mention that the average person living in the West Bank is extremely different than the average person living in Gaza.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 "oh, Israel suffered a horrific attack, their bloodlust now is totally understandable so if they go scorched Earth in na ground invasion I get it" but Palestinians have been attacked over and over for 75 years but their bloodlust is not understandable and if they go oscorched Earth (arguably this Hamas attack) it's not understandable?

 

Because the target was civilians and teens, hostages were taken. It was a terrorist attack, not a battle, not a war.

 

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Agreed - you'll get no argument from me. But I get the sense Israel isn't willing to wheel and deal either from what I understand.

 

More-so the current administration of turd, er, Netanyahu. 

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You did, and I'm with you! But he's controlled Israel for a long time and we're talking about solutions in 2023 so he's very relevant when discussing Israel-Palestine right now since he's in control of Israel.

 

I don't believe I said he isn't relevant, what I am saying is that he's a major problem and I cannot wait for him to get kicked out of power.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Agreed, but under a country governed and controlled by the people who had lived there for a long while. It's all Palestinian land at the time, whether Jews lives there or not.

 

What constitutes a "long time" given human life spans? I'd argue "about 70 years" is long-enough for both sides to work together in a functioning government vs one side needing to rule. (and to eliminate confusion, I'm talking about 1948 - somehow this keeps getting lost)

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

The Jews aren't "giving up" any land. Palestine had the whole country and the UN gave Jews land.

 

They were there for roughly 70 years in both the areas the UN/British proposed to be Israel and Palestine prior to the resolution proposal. 

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

The Zionists before hand were just land owners under Palestine, not little Israels.

 

This is kinda semantics, as it was a name given to land mandated by British and Ottomans prior. There wasn't a functioning government run solely by Palestinians at this point to my knowledge.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Jews living there still makes it Palestinian land that Palestine should decide what to do with, not the UN. Just cause a Jewish person lives somewhere doesn't make it Israel.  

 

There's an argument that it was British land and Ottoman land prior, though. Palestine was not an independent country, it was just a swath of land with a name.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I agree with you - all I'm saying is Israel is just as if not more culpable for not making stronger attempts at resolving this issue given they're the ones clearly in the driver's seat, not Palestine. If Israel created a good enough deal that if the Palestinians refused everyone would side with Israel, it could be done. But they don't - because Israel wants all the land, I think that's pretty clear given they keep expanding over the decades. We can't just be unhappy with Palestinians saying they want all the land back (or at least all the land from the pre-1967 Green Line without also saying Israel has little interest in doing any of that and expanding instead. This is why neither side can come to an agreement. Either Palestine accepts the deals the US and Israel present them, which have all been unfair to one degree or another, or there's no deal. Again, Palestine has no bargaining power, so it's the US and Israel that needs to drive peace talks. Palestinians could say now: "okay, we've lost, we'll accept post-1967 borders" but again, they aren't winning in that negotiation, they are just giving up for shitty peace.

 

Palestinians have wanted "all the land" until something like 20-ish years ago, though, and even then, it was not a clear majority willing to recognize Israel, let alone figure out a two state solution. We cannot pretend that Palestine has no culpability. Israel gave back multiple spots of land to Egypt in the past, places they won in the 6-day war.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

Ask any Palestinian if it's as simple as a name change and they would probably lose it. An enormous influx of additional Jewish people on top of the Zionists who had come with the intention of slowly displacing Palestinians to begin with? I guess when white colonialists came to America and displaced the Native Americans and oppressed them but also tried to live alongside them and calling it America was just a name change? The actual effects of Israel becoming Israel was far, far more than a name change in practice. 

 

Palestine wasn't an independent or self-governing country. Thus, it was just a piece of land people were at. If it had been a single state solution with both parties being told to "form a government" would that have been an issue?

Regardless you're misinterpreting my "name change" comment, as my point with the "it's just a name change" is that the issue was the proposed borders and seperation, not the name Israel or Palestine. 

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No, because Native Americans et. al. killed and kidnapped civilians too. White South Africans were absolutely targeted. But I meant fighting "better" by using what they have, like missiles and such. The Tibetans fought back but were barely an army with any technology. If Tibetans had missiles they could have fired into Guangzhang or whatever, they would have, absolutely.

 

If Tibetans were primarily targeting civilians they would have a lot less sympathy fwiw.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Again, if the 60% who support Hamas from Gaza doesn't mean anything.

 

It does when there were other viable options that stood on a platform of "let's try for peace".

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

Does every person who "supports" a political party buy into every extreme position they have? No. And when you've been forced to live a shit life your whole life and a group comes in promising to at least fight back (however horrifically), are you going to feel seen? Yes.

 

So you're saying that a group that is beaten down and forced to live in shit wouldn't believe in an extreme by seeing it as a necessity?

If I were to go to Alabama or Mississippi I'd expect the majority of people I bump into to think that the US election was stolen and that Trump is still technically president.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

They absolutely have targeted civilians in the past. Or was targeting medics and hospitals in 2014 not that?

 

I believe you're referencing shots fired by soldiers into crowds during protests. That was absolutely terrible, but it's not the same thing as deliberately going door to door killing and kidnapping civilians, nor is it the same as going to a music festival and killing hundreds of teens/early-20-somethings.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

And yes, treating civilians casualties as blatant collateral when you are the much more powerful military is badd.

 

Both are bad as I mentioned, yes.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yep - again, a lot of factors go into who is voting and how. I'm simply explaining how radical groups get elected in these tough scenarios even wheen the people voting for the radical group aren't radical themselves, they just want to be heard/seen.

 

Gaza and the West Bank are extremely different. Gaza tends to be much more "radical" in general afaik.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

Land is not land and name changes aren't just name changes.

 

When the governing bodies of the land are foreign (British, Ottomans) and there is no actual independent state, I must disagree.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

It's about religious or cultural domination, it's about destroying peoples' family legacies and their attachment to their ancestral homes. You have to understand that like a lot of countries, these are simple and poor people. All many have known their whole lives is where they were born and grew up. Israel is doing more than just taking land and changing a name. I think saying that is very dismissive of the very real intangible changes that come along with "land is just land" and "it's just a name change." I've always felt all random drawn boundary lines between countries is stupid and imaginary but there are very real reasons it matters, especially to marginalized and oppressed groups whose whole way of life might be snuffed out once they're all gone.

 

 

I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about the 1948 proposed UN/British resolution, but I guess not?

 

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't think I said anywhere in this thread that the Palestinians are just victims in this whole affair.

 

I never said you did, it was a general statement.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I don't think anyone in this thread had.

 

It's been implied a few times ITT by at least one person, but my main statement was a general point regarding sentiment I've seen elsewhere

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think all anyone has done is bother to make the distinction between Hamas and the average Palestinian civilian when it comes to the IDF's current bloodlust over a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip. But the culpability is not equal.

 

How does one eliminate a political party?

[Greatoneshere]

33 minutes ago, UpvoteShittyTakesOnly said:

 

there were people of palestinian ethnicity living in the region there but it was the ottoman empire for 400 years and then the dumbass brits from ww1 until the founding of Israel so i dont follow this notion that palestine had it

 

and honestly this point makes sense of your entire pov as if your position is that the whole thing belonged to a state called palestine it is understandable that you might feel as you do

 

They lived under the Ottomans, yes, but in that area generally known as Palestine it was all Palestinians theree living under Ottoman rule, and given the religiousness of the area, there's something to be said for being a part of the same religion as the one that rules you - the Ottomans and Palestinians shared a significant amount more culturally and geographically and religiously than Europeans Jews and Palestinian Muslims do, and that matters. Ottomans also allowed Palestine to kind of unofficially be Palestine while under their rule whereas Israel is a far different situation even if it appears on the surface as like for like.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, UpvoteShittyTakesOnly said:

 

i know at one point abbas suggested the right of return to a palestinian state in the pre 67 borders and hamas was like fuck no so it isnt as though there have never been leaders willing to budge of full right of return

 

but it has been the stickiest of sticking points in the actual peace talks for longer than any of us have been alive

 

It's only recently (like this past year afaik) that the majority of Palestinians would prefer/be okay with a two-state solution. 

[Jwheel86]

The problem with the two state solution is that Gaza was basically the test case and failed. So the discussion needs to be how do you make a Palestinian State viable? The Palestinian Authority might outright collapse once Abbas dies. 

 

The Palestinian Authority, teetering on collapse, is tested by Israeli raid in Jenin - The Washington Post

WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM

---

Israel's military operation in Jenin exposed the weakness of the Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians view as increasingly irrelevant and out of touch.

Quote

“The PA has never been weaker,” said Diana Buttu, a lawyer who advised the Palestinian negotiating team during the second intifada, from 2000 to 2005.

 

Quote

But she also believes that Mahmoud Abbas — the aging and deeply unpopular Palestinian president who has stretched his mandate from four years to two decades — has failed to adapt to a new reality.

“It’s like Abu Mazen is stuck in the 1990s; it’s a joke,” Buttu said, using Abbas’s Arabic moniker. “The only people who are still speaking about the two-state solution are Abu Mazen and the international community. Israel has moved on.”

 

Quote

Abbas visited Jenin on Wednesday, arriving from Ramallah in a Jordanian helicopter and flanked by several branches of his security forces. It was his first public appearance there since the last Palestinian presidential election campaign in 2005.

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I believe that's before Palestinian leaders recognized Israel's right to exist, IIRC.

 

That's just a cover for a lack of desire by the white Western world to even care about Palestinians' plight in comparison to Israel's. While I agree that doesn't help their side to start the bargaining at an extreme end, but typically that's where you do want to start ta negotiation. I think one aspect of this is being lost - countries like the US, especially in the past, don't care about brown people, I think that's evident. Israel had no desire for peace in negotiations any more than Palestine wanted to relent on the existence of Israel to begin with. But that's neither here nor there since negotiations went poorly each time all around. All I was pointing out that when bargaining, the clearly disadvantaged party should not be the one to be expected to relent when they have the most grievances. Again, I blame both sides but not in equal measure.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I was talking about (and only about) the original resolution proposed by the UN/British, not later ones.

 

Ah, I understand then - makes sense. In that case, I'm pretty sure Palestine was like: "why do we have to give up any land?" and it seems like your response, if I understand  you correctly, is that Israel is being given just slightly more land so Palestine should bargain with the UN to work on something more fair. But from the footage of the vote for this during the UN Palestine was barely heard. There was no chance that once the lines were drawn and approved that anything would change afterward. That was that. And once the state of Israel was announced, I imagine for the people literally needing to relocate ala Pakistan and India during partition would rather fiight for theeir lands and homes than just accept a resolution from a bunch of people very far away.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Hamas has 60% support in Gaza, though, and 75% of Gazans support more extreme groups who also want all Jews dead. If you support the groups that have "all Jews must die" as their main platform, there's a high chance you probably also want dead Jews.  I know you've brought up "well 70m+ Americans voted for Trump" but when did Trump as president have 60% approval ratings? You cannot easily separate the two in this instance when it comes to Gazans.

 

I understand you keep separating the Gazans from the West Bank, and one should since they are very different. But you keep referring to these numbers, which I don't doubt, but again, this is context. Hamas is (relatively) new on the block, having been voted in in 2006 - after the Gaza Strip had basically been abused for decades. I'm not going to blame a significantly abused group of people (the Gazans) for turning to or supporting groups that will do something for them - but that still doesn't mean the regular Gazan wants to kill every Jew. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

The two aren't always separate issues among many Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, is the problem.

 

For some Palestinians, no, there is no difference. But for a lot of Palestinians, I do believe there is a difference. It's like blaming any country's government but not its people. It's a pretty easy distinction to make, it's only harder for them since Israel is a religious state almost wholly made up of one religion that oppresses them, so crossed wires for some Palestinians can't be a surprise. But to suggest most Palestinians don't understand the difference when many of them deal with Jewish Israelis often regularly is not the case I think.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

But their guerilla tactics are targeting civilians (and primarily at that). That's the problem.

 

Yes, it is targeting civilians, I agree. And I said I don't like that. But you asked me to elaborate on what I meant by fighting "more" or "better" so I elaborated. I can agree with a lot of their tactics but not all of them. 

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I'd certainly argue that Trump represents the average republican. 60% approval rating = majority are represented by them and their actions as far as I'm concerned.

 

I agree that Trump represents the average Republican, but does he represent the average American? I don't think so. A lot of Americans don't vote, and of those who ddo and voted for Trump don't per se agree with everything Trump is about but vote Republican out of party loyalty. Similarly, Hamas represents the average Muslim fundamentalist, but they don't represent the average Palestinian or Gazan in this same way. Unless now we're just gonna call every Gazan a Muslim fundamentalist because some voted for Hamas?

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Because the target was civilians and teens, hostages were taken. It was a terrorist attack, not a battle, not a war.

 

This is the latest salvo in an ongoing "soft" war. It's a terrorist attack in that civilians were targeted, killed and kidnapped, I agree. But this is a war, and has been. You can have a terrorist attack during a war. 

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

What constitutes a "long time" given human life spans? I'd argue "about 70 years" is long-enough for both sides to work together in a functioning government vs one side needing to rule. (and to eliminate confusion, I'm talking about 1948 - somehow this keeps getting lost)

 

They were there for roughly 70 years in both the areas the UN/British proposed to be Israel and Palestine prior to the resolution proposal. 

 

This is kinda semantics, as it was a name given to land mandated by British and Ottomans prior. There wasn't a functioning government run solely by Palestinians at this point to my knowledge.

 

There's an argument that it was British land and Ottoman land prior, though. Palestine was not an independent country, it was just a swath of land with a name.

 

I figured I'd address these all at once. Yes, it was first Ottoman land and then British land, but Palestinians essentially governed themselves through "self-rule" primarily is my understanding. Under Ottoman rule, where they had Palestine for 400 years, Palestine created its own culture and unique ethnic identity while they freely practiced Islam primarily without incident. We can say that, "on the books", Palestine was first Ottoman-controlled and then British-controlled but these were far away occupiers that primarily left Palestine and the Palestinians alone. Israel, obviously, is a different thing altogether where the Palestinians' entire way of life was threatened and displaced. Just because something isn't an internationally recognized country doesn't mean it's just a swath of land with a name, which is dismissive. I'm pretty sure for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabach who just got displaced by the Azerbaijani's despite the area being Armenian for hundreds of years, N-K is just a swath of land with a name since technically, internationally it is only recognized to be part of Azerbaijan. Sounds ridiculous in a different context when it's not Israel-Palestine I think.

 

The Zionist movement started in the 1890's - there weren't many, if any, Jews in Palestine before then. Even then, until 1948, despite there being multiple exoduses' by Jews to Palestine due to the Zionist movement and increasing anti-Semitism in Europe, Palestinians were still 90%+ of Palestine's population. Why would "both sides need to work together" at this point? Again, why should Palestinians, at the time, ceded anything? Because for 70 years Jews intentionally moved there to displace them and despite significantly still outnumbering them by 1948 the Palestinians should have just agreed to terms? From what I recall the Jews moving to Palestine had no intention of being one nation with the Palestinians. It was a mandate by them to create a land of their own, they just needed to carve it away from someone else (the Palestinians). You're giving the Jewish people who ended up creating Israel a lot of credit as if they wanted to all hold hands with the Palestinians and sing songs of peace. They were never going to live in a country called Palestine where they are significantly outnumbered by the local Muslim population. They wanted Israel and that was that. 

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Palestinians have wanted "all the land" until something like 20-ish years ago, though, and even then, it was not a clear majority willing to recognize Israel, let alone figure out a two state solution. We cannot pretend that Palestine has no culpability. Israel gave back multiple spots of land to Egypt in the past, places they won in the 6-day war.

 

I don't think anyone said "no" culpability for Palestine, as I say later in that post they are both culpable, just different proportionally. Either way I'll rephrase: Israel wants all the land, Palestine wants all the land back (until, as you said, recently, where that's changed).

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Palestine wasn't an independent or self-governing country. Thus, it was just a piece of land people were at. If it had been a single state solution with both parties being told to "form a government" would that have been an issue? Regardless you're misinterpreting my "name change" comment, as my point with the "it's just a name change" is that the issue was the proposed borders and seperation, not the name Israel or Palestine. 

 

I addressed this earlier but to reiterate there was never going to be a single state solution as neither side wanted it at the time. And while I'm a big fan of a single state solution but I'm regularly told that can't happen because Israel fears being completely outnumbered by Palestinians if they were to completely absorb the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That strikes me as more Israel in recent decades being against that more than anyone.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

If Tibetans were primarily targeting civilians they would have a lot less sympathy fwiw.

 

Lots of oppressed people target civilians (and non-civilians) to fight back. They are all in the wrong but what can they do when they have no other recourse? We don't have to like it but I get it is all. Hamas doesn't just target civilians, in the past them and other groups have targeted the military but we know they're clearly outmatched.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

It does when there were other viable options that stood on a platform of "let's try for peace".

 

That has never worked in the past for the Gaza Strip, and typically the oppressed side doesn't want to sue for peace, they want to make war untenable for their oppressor. Again, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Hamas recent attack is a response to Israel's mistreatment of them regardless of peace deals or not. Hence the support for Hamas for some.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

So you're saying that a group that is beaten down and forced to live in shit wouldn't believe in an extreme by seeing it as a necessity? If I were to go to Alabama or Mississippi I'd expect the majority of people I bump into to think that the US election was stolen and that Trump is still technically president.

 

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you, I'm explaining why many gravitated towards Hamas even when they shouldn't because of what Israel has done to them. So some will definitely see the extreme as a necessity. 

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I believe you're referencing shots fired by soldiers into crowds during protests. That was absolutely terrible, but it's not the same thing as deliberately going door to door killing and kidnapping civilians, nor is it the same as going to a music festival and killing hundreds of teens/early-20-somethings.

 

Both are bad as I mentioned, yes.

 

No, I'm referring to this (I posted this was earlier in this thread as well):

 

Mounting evidence of deliberate attacks on Gaza health workers by Israeli army - Amnesty International

WWW.AMNESTY.ORG

---

An immediate investigation is needed into mounting evidence that the Israel Defense Forces launched apparently deliberate attacks against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza, which have left six medics dead, said Amnesty International as it released disturbing testimonies from doctors, nurses, and ambulance personnel working in the area. “The harrowing descriptions by ambulance drivers and […]

 

And this. There are a lot like these during the "quieter" parts of this ongoing "soft" war in the past two decades (same header image lol): 

 

Israeli forces displayed ‘callous indifference’ in deadly attacks on family homes in Gaza - Amnesty International

WWW.AMNESTY.ORG

---

Israeli forces have killed scores of Palestinian civilians in attacks targeting houses full of families which in some cases have amounted to war crimes, Amnesty International has disclosed in a new report on the latest Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip. Families under the Rubble: Israeli attacks on inhabited homes details eight cases where residential […]

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Gaza and the West Bank are extremely different. Gaza tends to be much more "radical" in general afaik.

 

This remains true, I'm with you here.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

When the governing bodies of the land are foreign (British, Ottomans) and there is no actual independent state, I must disagree.

 

This is a very technical way to look at this. Ask a Palestinian about their history and regardless of whether its the Ottomans or the British to them it was always called Palestine and they had their own cultural and ethnic identity. Ruling from afar is not the same as someone who moves in and takes over.

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about the 1948 proposed UN/British resolution, but I guess not?

 

That's my bad if so, I think because in my post before yours I was mentioning thee 1967 war so I probably got my wires crossed. All good!

 

5 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

How does one eliminate a political party?

 

By defanging its military; which doesn't per se mean a horrific ground invasion or indiscriminate bombings. You can apply Israeli political pressure, international political pressure, institute diplomatic channels, employ sanctions until they release the hostages, demand the formal dissolution of the party, etc. There's a lot one can do. Demonstrating restraint and caution are almost always a good thing at that macro level when swathes of human lives are in the balance. 

[SuperSpreader]

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/bpcToKaZN7

 

[SuperSpreader]

Quote

 

Dr Mohammed told Sky News he is increasingly optimistic about a breakthrough, adding: "Our target is to release all of the civilian hostages. That's what we're working on, and that's what we want to achieve.

 

"We remain hopeful. We do the best that we can trying to get everyone soon and hopefully we can achieve that goal within the upcoming days.

 

But the negotiator said there is a major caveat to that optimism: For further progress to secure more releases, there needs to be a pause in the fighting.

Dr Mohammed added: "If the mediator wants to perform its task in the best way possible as a state, then we need to reach a period of calm.

 

"We need to reach a period where we can speak logically to both sides and come up with positive initiatives."

 

 

 

Israel-Hamas war: All civilian hostages could be freed from Gaza in days if fighting paused, Qatari negotiators say

NEWS.SKY.COM

---

Qatar is leading talks to persuade Hamas to release civilian hostages, after the group abducted innocent Israelis and took them back to Gaza in an attack on 7 October.

 

 

[Ricofoley]

Jeff Stein on Twitter:

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff Stein

 

@JStein_WaPo

 

New Speaker Johnson (R) says House GOP is going to insist on spending cuts to find the $14B that Biden has requested for Israel. "We're going to find the cuts elsewhere to do that," Johnson said

 

Uh, yeah, I'm gonna need another motion to vacate, please

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Israel-Hamas war: Satellite data shows Israel intensifying bombing of south Gaza

NEWS.SKY.COM

---

Sky News analysis of satellite radar suggests that Israel has intensified its bombing of southern Gaza in the last two weeks, despite ordering residents of the north to flee southwards.

 

Quote

 

Every 12 days, NASA's Sentinel-1 satellite passes three times over the Gaza Strip, firing out radar waves and listening for their echo. Buildings typically bounce the signals right back, but rubble scatters them in all directions.

 

By comparing signals before the war with those taken more recently, we can estimate the scope and scale of the destruction.

 

This map shows what Gaza looked like before the war, its population densely clustered in Gaza City, in the far north, and the southern cities of Rafah and Khan Younis.

 

 

Quote

 

By 13 October, six days after Hamas launched its attacks in southern Israel, much of Gaza City had been hit by airstrikes.

 

The satellite data suggests 15% of buildings in northern Gaza were damaged or destroyed in less than a week, along with 2% in southern Gaza.

 

That same day, Israel ordered all 1.1 million residents of northern Gaza to flee southwards to relative safety.

 

Since then, however, Israel has stepped up its bombing of the south.

 

 

Quote

 

Almost half of all new damage detected between 14 and 25 October was in southern Gaza (47%), up from 14% before the evacuation order.

 

While there was a decrease in new damage across the Gaza Strip during those two weeks, the level of destruction in southern Gaza increased by 85%.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

US strikes two Syrian facilities after attacks by Iran-backed militia | Reuters

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

U.S. President Joe Biden ordered strikes on two facilities in Syria following attacks on U.S. troops in the past week, the Pentagon said, warning the U.S. will take additional measures if attacks by Iran's proxies...

 

Quote

 

U.S. President Joe Biden ordered strikes on two facilities in Syria following attacks on U.S. troops in the past week, the Pentagon said, warning the U.S. will take additional measures if attacks by Iran's proxies continue.

 

U.S. forces have been hit more than a dozen times in Iraq and Syria in the past week by what Washington suspects are Iran-backed groups. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Lebanon's Hezbollah are all backed by Tehran.

 

Quote

The U.S. military carried out strikes on Thursday against two facilities in eastern Syria used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and groups it backs, the Pentagon said.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Missile strikes Egyptian Red Sea town on Israel border | Reuters

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

A missile launched as part of fighting between Hamas militants and Israel struck an Egyptian resort town about 220 km (135 miles) from the Gaza Strip early on Friday, Egypt's Al Qahera News reported, citing...

 

Quote

 

A missile launched as part of fighting between Hamas militants and Israel struck an Egyptian resort town about 220 km (135 miles) from the Gaza Strip early on Friday, Egypt's Al Qahera News reported, citing sources.

 

The missile hit a medical facility in Taba, injuring at least six people, Al Qahera TV reported. A witness in Taba confirmed hearing an explosion and seeing smoke rising, but Reuters was not immediately able to identify the blast's source.

 

Taba straddles Egypt's border with Israel's Red Sea port of Eilat. Israel's military said it was aware of a security incident outside its borders.

 

Hamas said on Wednesday it had targeted Eilat with a missile, which the Israeli military said hit an outlying area. That incident appeared to be the longest-range Palestinian attack of the Gaza war raging since Oct. 7

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The Washington Post has published its own investigation/analysis of the explosion at the Gaza hospital:

 

Gaza hospital blast evidence shows it was caused by rocket, not airstrike - The Washington Post

WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM

---

Videos analyzed by The Washington Post reveal that rockets were launched from Gaza in the direction of al-Ahli Hospital 44 seconds before an explosion there.

 

Quote

 

Fighters in Gaza launched a barrage of rockets toward Israel and in the direction of al-Ahli Hospital 44 seconds before an explosion there that killed at least 100 people, according to a visual analysis by The Washington Post.

 

Video obtained from Israeli television channel Keshet 12 News allowed The Post to geolocate the origin of the barrage to a point southwest of the hospital in Gaza City, matching the rough location the Israeli military has alleged was the launch site of a misfired rocket that it said landed on the hospital grounds. Experts said rockets from that barrage would have been able to reach the hospital in time for the explosion.

 

The analysis of that and other videos, in addition to expert review of imagery of the blast site, provides circumstantial evidence that could bolster the contention by Israel and the U.S. government that a stray rocket launched by a Palestinian armed group was responsible for the Oct. 17 explosion.

 

 

Quote

 

At the same time, no visual evidence has emerged showing a rocket hitting the hospital grounds, and the evidence reviewed by The Post does not rule out the possibility that an unseen projectile fired from somewhere else struck the hospital grounds.

 

None of the more than two dozen experts consulted by The Post was able to say with certainty what kind of weapon struck the hospital grounds or who fired it. But munitions experts agreed that the damage at the hospital was consistent with a rocket strike. They said it was not consistent with an airstrike, which would have caused much greater destruction, or with an artillery strike, which would have left substantial fragments and probably not caused the massive fireball seen in videos.

 

In addition, The Post’s analysis found that a key video filmed and aired by Al Jazeera, which the Israeli and U.S. governments have cited as evidence that a rocket failed and landed on the hospital grounds, instead shows a projectile launching from a location miles away in Israel, near an apparent Iron Dome air-defense battery. Experts said that the widely circulated video probably showed an Iron Dome interceptor missile that collided with a rocket more than three miles from the hospital and most likely had nothing to do with the hospital explosion.

 

 

Quote

 

The barrage

 

The barrage rose from Gaza just after 6:59 p.m. local time. It immediately garnered attention from those looking to assign responsibility for the explosion at the hospital. Keshet 12 News aired several seconds of its footage from a balcony in the Israeli town of Netivot showing the launch. The outlet provided The Post with a 94-second clip that included the full barrage.

 

A second video, from a live camera facing the Gaza Strip in Bat Yam, a suburb of Tel Aviv, captured the same launch. Both videos had time stamps that The Post verified were accurate.

 

The videos showed the launch from two different vantage points, about 40 miles apart. By geolocating key reference points visible in the videos, The Post triangulated the barrage’s launch origin to a location nearly three miles southwest of al-Ahli Hospital, just outside Gaza City. The location approximately matched the launch site depicted in a “radar footage” map the Israeli military released on Oct. 18 showing what it said was the site and the trajectories of the rockets fired from it, which passed over the hospital.The Post’s analysis found that the barrage did fly to the northeast, in the direction of the hospital.

Markus Schiller, a Munich-based rocket and missile expert, said he estimated that it would have taken one of the standard Qassam-model rockets used by Palestinian armed groups between 25 and 45 seconds to reach the hospital from the launch site, depending on factors including launch angle.

 

Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and scientist-in-residence at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said that his findings conformed with Schiller’s and that the rockets would have taken between roughly 26 and 37 seconds to reach the hospital.

The barrage seen in the videos, which included more than a dozen visible rockets, begins 44 seconds before the hospital explosion and lasts for 14 seconds, meaning many or potentially all of the rockets could have reached the hospital in time for the explosion. There was no visual evidence to prove that any of them failed and crashed.

 

 

Quote

 

The blast

 

Video filmed from a building about 500 feet southeast of the hospital captured the high-pitched scream of a projectile speeding by just before the explosion.

 

The Post sent that video and another that captured the moment of the explosion to multiple audio forensic experts for review. Rob Maher, a professor at Montana State University, said that the increasing frequency produced by the incoming projectile indicates that it was accelerating.

 

Acceleration could imply that the projectile was falling vertically, gaining speed from gravity, he said, adding that that would be more consistent with a malfunctioning rocket plummeting from the sky, according to acoustic analysis, than an object moving horizontally.

 

Marc Garlasco, a former Defense Department battle damage assessment analyst and U.N. war crimes investigator, said the blast required a “substantial” amount of explosive payload and fuel accelerant, like that carried by a malfunctioning rocket.

 

 

Quote

 

The aftermath

 

Photos show members of the Palestinian police explosives ordinance disposal unit examining a crater caused by the blast that night. The morning after the strike, Palestinian journalists and civilians began posting videos and photos of the scene. No remnants of the munition that caused the blast were evident in the images.

 

They showed more than a dozen incinerated vehicles, including one that had flipped onto its roof, in the hospital’s parking lot.

 

The buildings surrounding the courtyard had sustained relatively light damage, including shattered windows and tiles blown off roofs.

 

The small crater, measuring nearly three feet wide, was located in the parking lot between two grassy lawns where civilians had been sheltering. A spray-like fragmentation pattern in the ground extends from the crater in one direction, but experts did not agree on its significance.

 

Portions of a metal and concrete fence nearest to the crater were broken and bent, and nearby trees appeared to have been burned.

 

More than half a dozen experts who independently reviewed imagery of the scene said the lack of major blast damage, such as collapsed buildings, as well as the relatively small size and shape of the crater, ruled out the possibility of the kind of airstrike Israel has carried out elsewhere in Gaza since Oct. 7.

 

“I can categorically say this wasn’t an airstrike,” Garlasco said.

 

Garlasco noted the large amount of what he called "localized thermal damage,” meaning destruction from fire, which he said is not common in airstrikes. Such a scene, he said, is instead more consistent with a munition “with a lot of fuel in it” falling to the ground prematurely and igniting along with its warhead. That would create a flash fire that ignited the compound with concentrated rather than widespread damage, Garlasco said.

 

The size of the crater and the blast bore some similarities to an impact from a 155-millimeter artillery round, a munition in the Israeli arsenal, said Chris Cobb-Smith, a security consultant and former artillery officer in the British army. But other weapons could do the same, and an artillery round would not have produced the fireball seen in the blast videos, he said.

 

 

Quote

 

A misinterpreted video

 

The Israeli and U.S. governments, and some news organizations, pointed to a video filmed and aired by Al Jazeera the night of the blast that seemed initially to show a possible rocket fly near the hospital and explode in midair seconds before the hospital explosion. The Israeli military cited the video in multiple interviews. U.S. intelligence officials said their analysts had also relied on that video.

 

But after analyzing multiple videos, The Post found that the projectile in question had actually launched from a point inside Israel near a likely Iron Dome missile defense site, and experts said it was probably an interceptor missile that had nothing to do with the hospital blast.

 

About 20 seconds after the rocket barrage began, the live camera in the Tel Aviv suburb captured the lone projectile rising far to the east, as did a video filmed by a cameraman on a Gaza City rooftop.

 

The Post used these two videos to triangulate the origin of the projectile to a point about 2½ miles inside Israel and confirmed the location with the video obtained from Keshet 12 News. The origin point was first identified by independent open-source investigators who posted their findings on X and Discord.

 

The projectile’s origin location was in the vicinity of an Israeli military site, satellite images show. Experts said the site, imaged by Planet Labs on Oct. 20, has features that are consistent with known examples of Iron Dome missile batteries, including blast walls arranged directly next to launchers.

 

About 15 seconds after launching, and after changing its direction and arcing toward the west, the projectile that originated from the vicinity of the suspected Iron Dome location exploded in midair.

 

Five experts who reviewed the videos told The Post that the projectile appeared to be a Tamir interceptor missile fired by Israel’s Iron Dome system, based on its behavior and launch location.

 

“All we are seeing is the missile interceptor,” said Dalnoki-Veress. “These interceptors are then constantly changing their course to correct for the expected intercept point in time and space."

 

Unlike the unguided rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups, which follow ballistic trajectories, the missile’s snaking path through the sky before exploding showed a “clear non-ballistic trajectory you expect from the Tamir interceptor,” Dalnoki-Veress said.

 

Justin Bronk, a senior research fellow at the U.K.-based defense and security think tank Royal United Services Institute, interpreted the footage differently and wrote in an email that it captured “a single visible rocket motor that shows a sudden, quite violent course change that would be consistent with a control surface failure, followed by a shower of sparks consistent with a structural breakup in flight a few seconds later."

 

The five experts agreed that there was no evidence to connect the likely interception to the hospital blast and that the two events probably had no relationship to each other.

 

The explosion and fireball erupted at the grounds of the hospital seven seconds after the apparent interceptor missile exploded in midair. The Post triangulated the location of the likely intercept explosion to a point about a mile inside the Israeli border and about 3½ miles east of the hospital.

 

The seven seconds between the midair explosion and the hospital explosion miles away was not enough time for debris from the intercept to have impacted the hospital, Schiller said. Any object at the site of the midair explosion would have had to travel at more than 500 meters per second, a supersonic speed, which “is quite impossible,” he said. Schiller said the culprit was more likely an unrelated rocket that was malfunctioning and “hit the hospital grounds just a few seconds after that intercept event.”

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Israeli poll finds 49% support for holding off on Gaza invasion | Reuters

T.CO

---

Almost half of Israelis want to hold off on any invasion of Gaza, according to a poll published on Friday, in what may indicate a dip in support for the planned next stage of the counter-offensive against Hamas militants holding some 200 hostages.

 

Quote

 

Almost half of Israelis want to hold off on any invasion of Gaza, according to a poll published on Friday, in what may indicate a dip in support for the planned next stage of the counter-offensive against Hamas militants holding some 200 hostages.

 

Israel vowed to annihilate Hamas in response to the Palestinian Islamists' killing and kidnapping spree in its southern communities on Oct. 7, and has been stepping up tank and infantry raids in concert with heavy shelling of the enclave.

 

Asked if the military should immediately escalate to a large-scale ground offensive, 29% of Israelis agreed while 49% said "it would be better to wait" and 22% were undecided, the poll published in the Maariv newspaper said.

 

 

[Spork3245]

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

That's just a cover for a lack of desire by the white Western world to even care about Palestinians' plight in comparison to Israel's. While I agree that doesn't help their side to start the bargaining at an extreme end, but typically that's where you do want to start ta negotiation. I think one aspect of this is being lost - countries like the US, especially in the past, don't care about brown people, I think that's evident. Israel had no desire for peace in negotiations any more than Palestine wanted to relent on the existence of Israel to begin with. But that's neither here nor there since negotiations went poorly each time all around. All I was pointing out that when bargaining, the clearly disadvantaged party should not be the one to be expected to relent when they have the most grievances. Again, I blame both sides but not in equal measure.

 

Ehhhh, the PLC/PLO was 100% a terrorist group until the 90s and weren't much better than Hamas currently is. The change in rhetoric mattered a lot but the past being so recent (like... months) also mattered there.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

Ah, I understand then - makes sense. In that case, I'm pretty sure Palestine was like: "why do we have to give up any land?" and it seems like your response, if I understand  you correctly, is that Israel is being given just slightly more land so Palestine should bargain with the UN to work on something more fair. But from the footage of the vote for this during the UN Palestine was barely heard. There was no chance that once the lines were drawn and approved that anything would change afterward. That was that. And once the state of Israel was announced, I imagine for the people literally needing to relocate ala Pakistan and India during partition would rather fiight for theeir lands and homes than just accept a resolution from a bunch of people very far away.

 

I mean that I think speaking with the (future) Israelis directly could've been productive. We'll never know, though.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

I understand you keep separating the Gazans from the West Bank, and one should since they are very different. But you keep referring to these numbers, which I don't doubt, but again, this is context. Hamas is (relatively) new on the block, having been voted in in 2006 - after the Gaza Strip had basically been abused for decades. I'm not going to blame a significantly abused group of people (the Gazans) for turning to or supporting groups that will do something for them -

 

Hamas has been around for over 25 years. They essentially were created because the PLO/PLC started to be accepting of Israel existing. Hamas was the "peace? No, fuck you, kill'em" group formed in response to any possibility of peace. Now PIL and Lions' Den are the ones claiming that Hamas are too soft, and they have 75% support in Gaza.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

but that still doesn't mean the regular Gazan wants to kill every Jew. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

I'm saying that the majority who live in Gaza support groups who do want that, which is based on independent polling.

Is it wrong to say that the majority of republican voters have issues with trans people based on polling?

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

For some Palestinians, no, there is no difference. But for a lot of Palestinians, I do believe there is a difference. It's like blaming any country's government but not its people. It's a pretty easy distinction to make, it's only harder for them since Israel is a religious state almost wholly made up of one religion that oppresses them, so crossed wires for some Palestinians can't be a surprise. But to suggest most Palestinians don't understand the difference when many of them deal with Jewish Israelis often regularly is not the case I think.

 

I didn't say most Palestinians, I said many, most do want a two state solution as of 2023.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yes, it is targeting civilians, I agree. And I said I don't like that. But you asked me to elaborate on what I meant by fighting "more" or "better" so I elaborated. I can agree with a lot of their tactics but not all of them. 

 

But, again, their tactics are to target civilians and create fear and terror among innocence. I find it hard to justify any of that, just as I condemn Israel when they hit civilian targets. Were the IRA justified?

Just like you can say that most Palestinians as a whole do not want all Jews dead, I can also say that most Israelis as a whole don't want all Palestinians dead nor do most Israelis want all of their land.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

I agree that Trump represents the average Republican, but does he represent the average American? I don't think so.

 

No, of course he doesn't represent the avg American as even in 2016 Trump only received 45% of the votes, however, in states where Trump won by 60% or more, I'd say he likely represents the majority there, or, at the least, that the majority support and/or believe in his ideals. For example, if I were to go to West Virginia where Trump won around 70% of the vote, are you saying that Trump doesn't likely represent the average (average meaning not all but a majority of) West Virginians? 

Hamas certainly does not represent Palestinians as a whole, I am saying that the majority in Gaza support them by a very clear majority, and even more (an additional 15%) support two even more extreme parties. That is not an unconcerning statistic.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

A lot of Americans don't vote, and of those who ddo and voted for Trump don't per se agree with everything Trump is about but vote Republican out of party loyalty. Similarly, Hamas represents the average Muslim fundamentalist, but they don't represent the average Palestinian or Gazan in this same way. Unless now we're just gonna call every Gazan a Muslim fundamentalist because some voted for Hamas?

 

These are polling numbers from July 2023, not percentages of votes from the election where Hamas won.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

This is the latest salvo in an ongoing "soft" war. It's a terrorist attack in that civilians were targeted, killed and kidnapped, I agree. But this is a war, and has been. You can have a terrorist attack during a war. 

 

I never said you can't have terrorist attacks during a war, but, there haven't been many times where Hamas has "fought back" in this war where it wasn't primarily against civilians. 

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

I figured I'd address these all at once. Yes, it was first Ottoman land and then British land, but Palestinians essentially governed themselves through "self-rule" primarily is my understanding. Under Ottoman rule, where they had Palestine for 400 years, Palestine created its own culture and unique ethnic identity while they freely practiced Islam primarily without incident. We can say that, "on the books", Palestine was first Ottoman-controlled and then British-controlled but these were far away occupiers that primarily left Palestine and the Palestinians alone. Israel, obviously, is a different thing altogether where the Palestinians' entire way of life was threatened and displaced. Just because something isn't an internationally recognized country doesn't mean it's just a swath of land with a name, which is dismissive. I'm pretty sure for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabach who just got displaced by the Azerbaijani's despite the area being Armenian for hundreds of years, N-K is just a swath of land with a name since technically, internationally it is only recognized to be part of Azerbaijan. Sounds ridiculous in a different context when it's not Israel-Palestine I think.

 

That's my point though, the name of the land isn't the issue, it's the borders that were drawn and the cultural/religious significance of the land to each group . If it was mandated to be a singular shared nation with democratically elected officials run by both groups called JewPales (side-note... holy fuck, this needs to happen. ONE STATE SOLUTION of JewPales BAYBAY) and it was peaceful, would anyone care that it's name wasn't Palestine or Israel? If Israel got up and left tomorrow, giving it all to the Palestinians, but they had to call it "Dead Sea Nation", are they really going to give a crap about the name? You're looking for something deeper in my "it's a name of a piece of land" when I absolutely assure you that's as deep as the statement goes.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

The Zionist movement started in the 1890's - there weren't many, if any, Jews in Palestine before then. Even then, until 1948, despite there being multiple exoduses' by Jews to Palestine due to the Zionist movement and increasing anti-Semitism in Europe, Palestinians were still 90%+ of Palestine's population. Why would "both sides need to work together" at this point? Again, why should Palestinians, at the time, ceded anything? Because for 70 years Jews intentionally moved there to displace them and despite significantly still outnumbering them by 1948 the Palestinians should have just agreed to terms? From what I recall the Jews moving to Palestine had no intention of being one nation with the Palestinians. It was a mandate by them to create a land of their own, they just needed to carve it away from someone else (the Palestinians). You're giving the Jewish people who ended up creating Israel a lot of credit as if they wanted to all hold hands with the Palestinians and sing songs of peace. They were never going to live in a country called Palestine where they are significantly outnumbered by the local Muslim population. They wanted Israel and that was that. 

 

 

Jews actually never left and always lived in the area, even after the Christians took it over in the 500s and even after Caliph Umar took it in the 600s. They were an extreme minority and highly oppressed and often slaughtered for being Jews. It was in the late 1800s that they began to feel safer and start to move back to the area in meaningful numbers (not to mention the push from Europe to "put them back where they came from". They have just as much claim as anyone else to want and to live in that region and I think dismissing it is not okay. I think you can simultaneously recognize that Jews have a legitimate history and ancestry to that land, and that the Palestinians have a legitimate history and ancestry to that land -> putting one over the other goes back to my statement of creating arbitrary timeline limits that ultimately do nothing for the situation.

The percentage of Jews in Palestine in 1914 was not less than 10%, it was around 15%, and by 1947 it was roughly 32%. It's also worth noting that the Muslim population in Palestine also rapidly grew during that time frame, going from 590k to 1.2m from 1922-1947. Both had an extreme influx of growth, Jews just more so due to the holocaust. Jews haven't been 10% or less of the population there since 1890. Working with each other for a peaceful resolution instead of being handed BS from the British seems somewhat reasonable to me? Especially with one side being 32% of the populace and the Palestinians being 59% (the remaining ~9% being Christian, who have also lived there for a very long time in not insignificant numbers). The proposed UN resolution was completely unfair and absolutely stupid in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean it should've been "we outnumber them so let's try to kill them" vs attempting dialogue directly. Maybe it was attempted though, but history seems a bit murky (to say the least) whenever researching who started what/did what to who.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

I don't think anyone said "no" culpability for Palestine, as I say later in that post they are both culpable, just different proportionally. Either way I'll rephrase: Israel wants all the land, Palestine wants all the land back (until, as you said, recently, where that's changed).

I addressed this earlier but to reiterate there was never going to be a single state solution as neither side wanted it at the time. And while I'm a big fan of a single state solution but I'm regularly told that can't happen because Israel fears being completely outnumbered by Palestinians if they were to completely absorb the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That strikes me as more Israel in recent decades being against that more than anyone.

 

It was implied early in this thread (not you, because you're absolutely not a trolling uneducated jackass like one person in particular ITT), and I'm not going to look for it (I don't have the mental energy to wade through 26 pages to find assclown commentary  ), there was even some making jokes about dead Israelis early ITT. 

 

If we're going to separate Hamas from Palestinians, we should also separate Netanyahu from the avg Israeli. There's 14 different political parties holding seats in Israel, Netanyahu's got the majority to win in 2022, but it was only around 24% of the vote that went to his party. Netanyahu and his cronies want the land more than the average Israeli, and I don't believe that's unfair to state.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

Lots of oppressed people target civilians (and non-civilians) to fight back. They are all in the wrong but what can they do when they have no other recourse? We don't have to like it but I get it is all. Hamas doesn't just target civilians, in the past them and other groups have targeted the military but we know they're clearly outmatched.

 

The vast majority of attacks are against civilians and/or shooting rockets and hoping they explode, though. Again, I can understand the anger of a group like the IRA, but I would never sympathize with or condone the actions they take. 

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

That has never worked in the past for the Gaza Strip, and typically the oppressed side doesn't want to sue for peace, they want to make war untenable for their oppressor. Again, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Hamas recent attack is a response to Israel's mistreatment of them regardless of peace deals or not. Hence the support for Hamas for some.

 

My statement about a single-state solution is (extremely) hypothetical and to emphasis that if a peaceful solution was found that no one would care about the name of the country.  

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

No, I'm referring to this (I posted this was earlier in this thread as well):

And this. There are a lot like these during the "quieter" parts of this ongoing "soft" war in the past two decades (same header image lol): 

 

Yes, this is what I'm talking about with the "excuse for civilian fall out" which is abhorrent and unacceptable. As I mentioned previously ITT, Hamas is integrated among the civilian population because it's ultimately a political party, and Israel uses that as an excuse for civilian casualties. 

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

 

This is a very technical way to look at this. Ask a Palestinian about their history and regardless of whether its the Ottomans or the British to them it was always called Palestine and they had their own cultural and ethnic identity. Ruling from afar is not the same as someone who moves in and takes over.

 

Sure, to them it was always called Palestine, and before that it had a different name, and before that a different name. That's my point. You seem to be fusing my comments about name changes with ruling parties and/or culture, but that's not what I'm saying - if it were a co-existence style of government that had peace, the name wouldn't have mattered.

Also, I'm not saying that only the Palestinians should've worked with the Jews, I'm saying that the Jews should have also worked with the Palestinians as well to find a peaceful solution.

 

On 10/26/2023 at 9:29 PM, Greatoneshere said:

By defanging its military; which doesn't per se mean a horrific ground invasion or indiscriminate bombings. You can apply Israeli political pressure, international political pressure, institute diplomatic channels, employ sanctions until they release the hostages, demand the formal dissolution of the party, etc. There's a lot one can do. Demonstrating restraint and caution are almost always a good thing at that macro level when swathes of human lives are in the balance. 

 

Palestine doesn't really have a military to defang, though. The issue is that Hamas is a political party with strong support, and that means the way to remove it isn't through sole military force. Education = defense = security = peace (and this doesn't just go for Palestine, it also goes for Israel and surrounding nations).

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

13 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

In that case, I'm pretty sure Palestine was like: "why do we have to give up any land?" and it seems like your response, if I understand  you correctly, is that Israel is being given just slightly more land so Palestine should bargain with the UN to work on something more fair. But from the footage of the vote for this during the UN Palestine was barely heard. There was no chance that once the lines were drawn and approved that anything would change afterward.

the leading palestinian orgs boycotted the entire process while jewish orgs actually participated in it

 

from benny morris’ book on the 1948 war

Quote

The immediate trigger of the 1948 War was the November 1947 UN partition resolution. … The Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, said a flat "no"… The Arabs refused to accept the establishment of a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. And, consistently with that "no", the Palestinian Arabs, in November–December 1947, and the Arab states in May 1948, launched hostilities to scupper the resolution's implementation

 

 

they didnt have to give up land as they didnt own all of it but a good way to get stuck with a bad deal is to not participate

 

abbas himself has made this point that it was a stupid decision to boycott the process

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The Washington Post has published its own investigation/analysis of the explosion at the Gaza hospital:

 

Gaza hospital blast evidence shows it was caused by rocket, not airstrike - The Washington Post

WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM

---

Videos analyzed by The Washington Post reveal that rockets were launched from Gaza in the direction of al-Ahli Hospital 44 seconds before an explosion there.

 

Linking to @Subzwari1987's post from a few days ago for the New York Times analysis of the hospital blast for purposes of methodological comparison:

 

 

[Jwheel86]

This a really good interview with the Commander of the mixed gender Caracal Battalion on the day of the attack pushing Hamas out of her outpost on the border.

 

 

[ort]

The current level of Israel discourse on twitter is unfathomable toxic and terrible. Like, I spend a lot of time wallowing in dark hostile places online and I can't remember ever seeing it quite like this. It's soul crushing and depressing.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, ort said:

The current level of Israel discourse on twitter is unfathomable toxic and terrible. Like, I spend a lot of time wallowing in dark hostile places online and I can't remember ever seeing it quite like this. It's soul crushing and depressing.

 

WHY ON EARTH DO YOU CONTINUE TO DO THIS TO YOURSELF?!?!?

[Jwheel86]

10 minutes ago, ort said:

The current level of Israel discourse on twitter is unfathomable toxic and terrible. Like, I spend a lot of time wallowing in dark hostile places online and I can't remember ever seeing it quite like this. It's soul crushing and depressing.

 

Everyone should have to take a quiz on the Israeli Palestinian conflict before posting about it. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The internet has ceased operations in Gaza and the intensity of Israeli airstrikes has markedly increased.

To me, this indicates that the major ground operation is imminent. 

[Ominous]

17 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

The internet has ceased operations in Gaza and the intensity of Israeli airstrikes has markedly increased.

To me, this indicates that the major ground operation is imminent. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

A reporter on the Israel/Gaza border claims that the level of intensity of tonight's airstrikes completely dwarfs anything that has occurred since this entire catastrophe began.

[UpvoteShittyTakesOnly]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

A reporter on the Israel/Gaza border claims that the level of intensity of tonight's airstrikes completely dwarfs anything that has occurred since this entire catastrophe began.

war zone correspondent trey yingst is posting videos directly from the border and it is getting hot

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, UpvoteShittyTakesOnly said:

war zone correspondent trey yingst is posting videos directly from the border and it is getting hot

 

That's exactly who I'm referring to!