Removed by mod

How are they “so obviously fake”?

Right, because we all know mainstream media like the BBC isn’t biased. This is the same news organization that published an article complaining about the environmental impact of the IDF whereas the Hamas rockets are much better for the environment. Fucking joke.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Yes, the Middle East is a rough, regressive, oppressive neighborhood. Islam has a lot to do with that.

But there are Muslim countries that have shown an interest in at least progressing from the most archaic and extreme interpretations of Islam. Those countries are pursuing normalization with Israel not because they suddenly like Jews, but because they respect the strength and prosperity of Israel and recognize it as a valuable partner for their own national development. These countries have put their past conflicts with Israel behind them.

Ironically, the people of Iran are among the least antisemitic in that part of the world. They scored lower on the ADL Global 100 than Greece!

Over the long term, yes.

There will always be jihadists and Islamist terrorists will always exist on a small scale, but without the backing of Iran none of it would exist on a scale that can threaten Israel or other countries in the region. The moderate Sunni countries like SA would become the main Muslim influence in the region and could help bring the Middle East into a new era of peace and prosperity.

I never said we’re special. But if the IDF is telling people to move out of harm’s way in the middle of a war, the simplest and most likely explanation is that they don’t want to kill those people.

Unfortunately this is not like every other ethnic conflict. That’s where the left is wrong, thinking this is just the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and we can sort it out with diplomacy. Those of us who understand the broader context don’t see it as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but the Israel/Iran war. This is about a genocidal Islamist regime that wants Israel literally destroyed and is willing to destroy countries and sacrifice their people (Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria) to accomplish that goal. *They’re *the bad guys here.

I see, so you think Israel is telling civilians to move just so they *look *merciful. Because it just can’t be possible that Israeli leaders are human beings with consciences and actually want to prevent civilian death if they can. Is that the implication?

Yes, of course my plan rests on a lot of assumptions. The settlements are the most complex part of negotiating peace between the two sides. But agreements have been reached in principle in the past (like Camp David and Taba). It’s difficult but not impossible, provided both sides are willing to figure it out. I probably should have included in my plan that the Netanyahu government eventually has to be replaced by a more moderate administration.

Does it really feel like that’s where the region is headed? Is that why Israel keeps telling Gazans and Lebanese people to move out of target areas? Don’t you think Israel could eliminate all 2 million Gazans in a few hours if they wanted to? Step back from the propaganda and think critically for a minute.

If you think there are a lot of Palestinians who want revenge, that’s all the more reason to postpone the recognition of a Palestinian state. Part of the problem with the two state solution is that it rests on a faulty assumption: that statehood is a goal of the Palestinian people. The past 75 years of history shows that to be false. If they wanted a state, they would have one. The goal of the Palestinian people (or to be fair, the Palestinian leadership) has always been the destruction of Israel. That’s what has always defined Palestinian nationalism. So pushing the 2SS is pushing a solution on the Israelis and Palestinians that the latter never wanted, and now the former don’t really want either.

The only real solution is one that will take time and involves several important developments:

1. Israel eliminates the immediate genocidal Islamist threats. That includes not only Hamas and Hezbollah, but preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
2. Israel will have to retain some level of security control over Gaza while rebuilding plans are developed. An interim government will have to step in to govern Gaza, which will likely be a coalition of the PA and moderate Arab countries (like UAE, SA, etc).
3. The Iranian regime must be removed from power. They are the biggest impediment to peace in the region and the people of Iran want them gone.
4. Israel continues to develop the Abraham Accords with moderate Arab nations. and, eventually, with a moderate Iranian leadership.
5. Palestinian leaders emerge with a vision for a thriving Palestinian state that can coexist peacefully with Israel. One of these leaders beats the PA in an election and begins the process of developing a Palestinian state.
6. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Where did I say that Israel needs to wipe out any particular population? I said they need to deal with Hezbollah, which is a genocidal terror army, and then deal with the Iranian regime, which is a genocidal Islamist government regime. Putting off a two state solution until the Palestinians can agree to stop trying to murder Jews isn’t advocating for genocide. That’s a ridiculous statement you made.

Israel isn’t done yet. Hezbollah is almost done, but there is still the head of the octopus: the Iranian regime. As long as they are in power and are working towards nukes, Israel will not be able to live in peace.

A two state solution is a long term goal. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was the first test of a 2SS and look how that turned out. The Palestinian people have a role to play in this too, by making a commitment to pursue peaceful coexistence. Otherwise we will go through all this again in another 15 years.

The entire area is a giant terrorist base. There are 500km of tunnels underneath Gaza used to transport weapons and conduct terror attacks. Hamas was integrated into the civilian infrastructure.

The impact on civilians is devastating but this is the only way to end the cycle of violence. Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist but they have no power because they have no territory. Israel has now done the same to Hamas.

US operations have killed a lot of civilians. But there is no theater of war quite like Gaza, which is what makes the numbers that much more impressive.

You can’t cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here’s a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it’s a vague term and international laws of war don’t exist?

Gaza isn’t a country, it’s a tiny enclave. War is very destructive. The best way to avoid it is to not start wars.

Like I said, people were screaming genocide in 2014 when the war lasted 2 weeks and the death toll was miniscule. Meaningless.

They were violently attacked and they have the right to respond with military force, the same right that any sovereign nation has. It’s one thing to question whether Israel could be doing more to prevent civilian casualties, but if your starting point is that Israel just shouldn’t respond at all, then your position is simply unreasonable to begin with.

Oh come on, there are well-established doctrines of internal law related to war - you know, the same “international law” that anti-Zionists love to accuse Israel of violating all the time.

‘Strike’ is the word I chose and may not be the word that actually appears in the documents that outline international law on the matter, but you get the point. This is a silly discussion.

Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don’t support it. By the way, did you know that during the 2014 war in Gaza, when the death toll was around 2500, people were accusing Israel of committing genocide then too? Anti-Zionists deliberately stretch the bounds of these concepts to make Israel a pariah. Just keep throwing accusations around and eventually something will stick. And even if it doesn’t, Israel’s enemies will continue to believe it anyway. This is a longstanding part of their propaganda strategy.

One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.>

No, it literally means nothing other than, “We, the ICJ, can hear this case.”