[Pants-of-dog]

I specifically cited what settler colonialism is about.

You copied and pasted some text.

Did you read the bit about economics? It was in the text you copied and pasted.

I already made my argument.

If you want an example of that of assimilation under the settler colonialism framework, the forced conversion to Islam or second class status of the conquered peoples who did not convert under threat of death, including but not limited to ghettoization and being subjected to punitive taxation, was quite similar to how the Spanish conquered most of America.

Then it is not settler colonialism but instead was exploitative colonialism, if it was colonialism at all.

If seen from this perspective, the movement of minorities like Jews, Maronite Christians, Kurds or Assyrians to assert their identity and autonomy would actually be an example of decolonization and so would be the terrorism by the likes of Irgun or Lehi - not all that different from South American indigenistas using whatever means necessary to "decolonize" even though the South American republics have been around for 200+ years now and neither Spain nor Portugal control territory in the continent.

Hence, why I ask: How useful is this analytical approach? It sounds like crap and is indeed crap.

You are using examples of exploitative colonialism (or perhaps even imperialism) to criticize the theory of settler colonialism.

This can be ignored since it is obviously an incorrect criticism.

It seems the forum is trying to embed the video. Here's the URL:

Code: Select allhttps://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaza-al-quds-idf-terrorist-hamas-rpg-launcher-vpx.cnn

Are you going to watch it and tell me what the argument is, and how this video supports the argument?

The same could be said about Hamas making demands it knows Israel won't accept.

Although I can imagine Hamas' leadership in Gaza taking the offer to leave as a way to end the war. Arafat did the same in Lebanon in 1982.

Sure. I never claimed Hamas wanted to quickly end the war and get the hostages home, so this whataboutism is also a strawman.

Note that you seem to be agreeing that Netanyahu is not actually interested in bringing hostages home and would rather prolong the war.

[wat0n]

You copied and pasted some text.

Did you read the bit about economics? It was in the text you copied and pasted.

So?

Then it is not settler colonialism but instead was exploitative colonialism, if it was colonialism at all.

It seems you skipped over the part in which settler colonialism can include the forced assimilation of conquered peoples. And you are forgetting about those locals who were only given the option to convert or the sword.

You are using examples of exploitative colonialism (or perhaps even imperialism) to criticize the theory of settler colonialism.

This can be ignored since it is obviously an incorrect criticism.

The Arab Muslims did replace the existing societies with their own through assimilation, conversion and marriage very much like the Spanish did in the Americas. Taxation was just one way to do it.

Another problem with your comparison is that Israel is an independent state and not part of a foreign empire aiming to conquer the land.

Are you going to watch it and tell me what the argument is, and how this video supports the argument?

Why don't you watch me and tell me what's in the footage?

Sure. I never claimed Hamas wanted to quickly end the war and get the hostages home, so this whataboutism is also a strawman.

Note that you seem to be agreeing that Netanyahu is not actually interested in bringing hostages home and would rather prolong the war.

Yet another example that this is not about "what", but "who".

Hamas could end the war it started quickly but it has chosen not to, and you see no issues with that because you see no issues with its behavior on October 7th.

[Pants-of-dog]

So?

The economic model is what separates settler colonialism from exploitative colonialism.

It seems you skipped over the part in which settler colonialism can include the forced assimilation of conquered peoples. And you are forgetting about those locals who were only given the option to convert or the sword.

In settler colonialism, forced assimilation only works alongside targeted destruction of the local community and culture. This is because the end goal is traditionally the annihilation of any community with a plausible claim to the land.

The Arab Muslims did replace the existing societies with their own through assimilation, conversion and marriage very much like the Spanish did in the Americas. Taxation was just one way to do it.

Taxation of the locals benefits from having more locals to tax.

This is different from an economic model where the rich benefit from killing all the locals. Do you see that?

Another problem with your comparison is that Israel is an independent state and not part of a foreign empire aiming to conquer the land.

Israel is the foreign empire, just as Canada is the foreign empire here where I am standing.

There is a historical difference: Canada was originally a colony of an empire, while Israel was never a colony of a foreign state.

Why don't you watch me and tell me what's in the footage?

I do not work for you, so unless you are going to start paying me, please do your own work for your own arguments.

[wat0n]

The economic model is what separates settler colonialism from exploitative colonialism.

Again, so?

In settler colonialism, forced assimilation only works alongside targeted destruction of the local community and culture. This is because the end goal is traditionally the annihilation of any community with a plausible claim to the land.

Sure, and that's what happened as a result of the expansion of Islam. There was an effort to convert locals into Islam and Arabize them by, for example, only allowing the use of Arabic for conducting business with the state.

Taxation of the locals benefits from having more locals to tax.

This is different from an economic model where the rich benefit from killing all the locals. Do you see that?

This is probably the most disingenuous response you could have given.

After all, if we were talking about a Native American people being subject to punitive taxation as a way to assimilate them into white culture by the US you would label it as systemic racism and also a form of contemporary settler colonialism.

Israel is the foreign empire, just as Canada is the foreign empire here where I am standing.

There is a historical difference: Canada was originally a colony of an empire, while Israel was never a colony of a foreign state.

That's not how colonialism works. A colony, by definition, answers and is indeed subject to a Metropoli and that's not the case with Israel.

What you are saying, then, is that Israel's existence is illegitimate because you believe the Jewish people has no right to self-determination. I wonder if you believe the same about other non-Arab peoples of the Middle East who - under your chosen framework - can also claim to be victims of Arab settler colonialism.

I do not work for you, so unless you are going to start paying me, please do your own work for your own arguments.

So then I will assume you are unwilling to watch the evidence of Hamas using a hospital for military purposes (in this case, as cover for someone carrying a RPG launcher). But you care about facts, heh?

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, so?

Sure, and that's what happened as a result of the expansion of Islam. There was an effort to convert locals into Islam and Arabize them by, for example, only allowing the use of Arabic for conducting business with the state.

Show that this happened in Palestine.

This is probably the most disingenuous response you could have given.

After all, if we were talking about a Native American people being subject to punitive taxation as a way to assimilate them into white culture by the US you would label it as systemic racism and also a form of contemporary settler colonialism.

It would not have the necessary economic structure for settler colonialism unless the taxation was a deliberately punitive taxation that was clearly designed to destroy whole communities.

Is this the case in Palestine?

That's not how colonialism works. A colony, by definition, answers and is indeed subject to a Metropoli and that's not the case with Israel.

What you are saying, then, is that Israel's existence is illegitimate because you believe the Jewish people has no right to self-determination. I wonder if you believe the same about other non-Arab peoples of the Middle East who - under your chosen framework - can also claim to be victims of Arab settler colonialism.

Again, Israel acts as its own Metropoli and this is a historical effect of being established by a foreign nation instead of a foreign state.

However, the economic model of transferring wealth from local communities to foreign communities that have settled in the locale is still evident. And since Israel was founded in 1945 or so, long after the globalization of capitalism, there was no need for a foreign state with a giant vault somewhere across the waters. People could just own stock. This is another reason why capitalism does not disprove settler colonialism.

So then I will assume you are unwilling to watch the evidence of Hamas using a hospital for military purposes (in this case, as cover for someone carrying a RPG launcher). But you care about facts, heh?

I am more than happy to consider evidence you have presented if you make an argument and explain how the evidence supports said argument.

Are you saying that this film shows an example of Hamas shooting rockets at the IDF from every single hospital in Gaza, and thus provides empirical support for the given justification for the closure of all these hospitals?

If you were to, for example, tell me what your argument is, I would not need to guess like that.

I have no idea why people come on a debate forum and are then coy about clearly stating their argument.

[wat0n]

Show that this happened in Palestine.

Is this a serious question? It's just a matter of doing some research:

The Umayyad Caliphate had four main social classes:

1. Muslim Arabs
2. Muslim non-Arabs (clients of the Muslim Arabs)
3. Dhimmis (non-Muslim free persons such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians)
4. Slaves

The Muslim Arabs were at the top of the society and saw it as their duty to rule over the conquered areas. The Arab Muslims held themselves in higher esteem than Muslim non-Arabs and generally did not mix with other Muslims.

As Islam spread, more and more of the Muslim population consisted of non-Arabs. This caused social unrest, as the new converts were not given the same rights as Muslim Arabs. Also, as conversions increased, tax revenues (peasant tax) from non-Muslims decreased to dangerous lows. These issues continued to worsen until they helped cause the Abbasid Revolt in the 740s.[178]

Palestine was part of that Caliphate.

It would not have the necessary economic structure for settler colonialism unless the taxation was a deliberately punitive taxation that was clearly designed to destroy whole communities.

Is this the case in Palestine?

Yes, it was aimed to push them into converting to Islam.

With the first Muslim conquests in the 7th century, the kharaj initially was synonomous with jizyah and denoted a lump-sum duty levied upon the lands of conquered provinces, which was collected by hold-over officials of the defeated Byzantine Empire in the west and the Sassanid Empire in the east; later and more broadly, kharaj refers to a land-tax levied by Muslim rulers on their non-Muslim subjects, collectively known as dhimmi. Muslim landowners, on the other hand, paid ushr, a religious tithe on land, which carried a lower rate of taxation,[2] and zakat. Ushr was a reciprocal 10% levy on agricultural land as well as merchandise imported from states that taxed Muslims on their products.

Again, Israel acts as its own Metropoli and this is a historical effect of being established by a foreign nation instead of a foreign state.

Jews are not foreign to the region, as shown by archaeological and historical evidence.

Where can we find any evidence of European presence in South America prior to 1492?

However, the economic model of transferring wealth from local communities to foreign communities that have settled in the locale is still evident. And since Israel was founded in 1945 or so, long after the globalization of capitalism, there was no need for a foreign state with a giant vault somewhere across the waters. People could just own stock. This is another reason why capitalism does not disprove settler colonialism.

This doesn't make sense. If an independent state adopts capitalism, it is by definition not a colony.

I am more than happy to consider evidence you have presented if you make an argument and explain how the evidence supports said argument.

Are you saying that this film shows an example of Hamas shooting rockets at the IDF from every single hospital in Gaza, and thus provides empirical support for the given justification for the closure of all these hospitals?

If you were to, for example, tell me what your argument is, I would not need to guess like that.

I have no idea why people come on a debate forum and are then coy about clearly stating their argument.

It shows that the Hamas fighter is using the hospital as cover, knowing Israel will face a political cost if it attacks him. And we know it's a fighter, an active one at that, since he's carrying a RPG.

[Rich]

I had thought that the Liberals experiences in Afghanistan and Libya might subdue their enthusiasm for creating Potemkin Nation States, but apparently not. The reality of the Liberal's Palestinians state isn't really that different from Netanyahu's promised non state. The Liberal's Palestinian state would be a permanent vassal of Israel. This is why it wouldn't be a solution. Palestinians aspirations would not be satisfied by the this toy town state. The obvious actual solution is to give Gaza back to Egypt, most of the West Bank to Jordan and demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque, hence demolishing the fiction that Jerusalem is going to be apart Arab controlled city.

[wat0n]

I had thought that the Liberals experiences in Afghanistan and Libya might subdue their enthusiasm for creating Potemkin Nation States, but apparently not. The reality of the Liberal's Palestinians state isn't really that different from Netanyahu's promised non state. The Liberal's Palestinian state would be a permanent vassal of Israel. This is why it wouldn't be a solution. Palestinians aspirations would not be satisfied by the this toy town state. The obvious actual solution is to give Gaza back to Egypt, most of the West Bank to Jordan and demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque, hence demolishing the fiction that Jerusalem is going to be apart Arab controlled city.

That Palestinian state would probably be an Egyptian or Jordanian vassal, not an Israeli one.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is this a serious question? It's just a matter of doing some research:

Palestine was part of that Caliphate.

You argued that Islam spread into Palestine through forced assimilation.

The evidence you provided does not discuss this forced assimilation at all.

Yes, it was aimed to push them into converting to Islam.

Provide evidence for this claim.

Jews are not foreign to the region, as shown by archaeological and historical evidence.

Where can we find any evidence of European presence in South America prior to 1492?

Jews were never foreign to the region, insofar as there has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine.

But Jews are not a monolithic group. There are many communities and traditions within Jewish people. The vast majority of Jews who came to settle in 1948 were from these foreign Jewish communities. Even within the bounds of Palestine, the majority of Jews who were living there in 1948 were from other countries or were descended from other countries. There is no Jewish community that was in Israel since Biblical times that was part of the Zionist move that formed the modern nation-state we call Israel.

This doesn't make sense. If an independent state adopts capitalism, it is by definition not a colony.

Why?

It shows that the Hamas fighter is using the hospital as cover, knowing Israel will face a political cost if it attacks him. And we know it's a fighter, an active one at that, since he's carrying a RPG.

So this shows that a single Hamas fighter was, at one point, close enough to a hospital to use it as cover in a firefight?

This is used as a justification for deliberately shutting down every single hospital in Gaza.

[wat0n]

You argued that Islam spread into Palestine through forced assimilation.

The evidence you provided does not discuss this forced assimilation at all.

How so?

The system was put in place through conquest.

Provide evidence for this claim.

This can be discerned from the design, and the fact that people could and indeed would convert to Islam.

Jews were never foreign to the region, insofar as there has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine.

But Jews are not a monolithic group. There are many communities and traditions within Jewish people. The vast majority of Jews who came to settle in 1948 were from these foreign Jewish communities. Even within the bounds of Palestine, the majority of Jews who were living there in 1948 were from other countries or were descended from other countries. There is no Jewish community that was in Israel since Biblical times that was part of the Zionist move that formed the modern nation-state we call Israel.

Interesting, so genealogy does matter in this case, does it? Unfortunately for you, however, genealogic studies do suggest Jews, in general, come from the Middle East.

Why?

Because it is an independent state.

So this shows that a single Hamas fighter was, at one point, close enough to a hospital to use it as cover in a firefight?

This is used as a justification for deliberately shutting down every single hospital in Gaza.

This is just an example of Hamas using hospitals for military purposes.

And, yes, it would justify taking control of such hospitals that are used for military purposes.

[ingliz]

@Pants-of-dog

every single hospital in Gaza.

Yesterday's numbers show some 660 recorded attacks on healthcare facilities in Gaza by Israeli forces.

[Pants-of-dog]

How so?

The system was put in place through conquest.

Not all conquests happen through forced assimilation.

Consequently, it very possible that Palestine became Islamic through a form of conquest other forced assimilation.

This can be discerned from the design, and the fact that people could and indeed would convert to Islam.

As I showed earlier, the exact opposite can also be discerned from the design.

Why is your argument any more plausible than the opposite?

Interesting, so genealogy does matter in this case, does it? Unfortunately for you, however, genealogic studies do suggest Jews, in general, come from the Middle East.

No.

Genealogy is the study of the ancestry of individuals.

I am discussing the continuity of communities.

For example, the Jewish community of Jerusalem could be considered a community even if there are no genealogical ties to the Jewish people living in Jerusalem 100 years before.

Because it is an independent state.

Okay.

Israel is not a colony anyway. Israel is the Metropoli enacting settler colonialism on Palestine.

Palestine, in this context, is the colony.

This is just an example of Hamas using hospitals for military purposes.

And, yes, it would justify taking control of such hospitals that are used for military purposes.

I think the fact that lone fighter is using cover justifies a flanking maneuver to get around his cover.

I understand why you believe it justifies depriving an entire population of medical care while they are bombed.

[wat0n]

Not all conquests happen through forced assimilation.

Consequently, it very possible that Palestine became Islamic through a form of conquest other forced assimilation.

This one did, unless you think having a second-class status and paying higher taxes unless you assimilate is not a form of forced assimilation.

As I showed earlier, the exact opposite can also be discerned from the design.

Why is your argument any more plausible than the opposite?

How so?

No.

Genealogy is the study of the ancestry of individuals.

I am discussing the continuity of communities.

For example, the Jewish community of Jerusalem could be considered a community even if there are no genealogical ties to the Jewish people living in Jerusalem 100 years before.

The fact that Jewish identity, religion and culture remained distinct in the diaspora also suggests continuity of those communities.

Okay.

Israel is not a colony anyway. Israel is the Metropoli enacting settler colonialism on Palestine.

Palestine, in this context, is the colony.

If so, then pretty much any country that has border conflicts can be regarded as a settler colonizer.

Would you say so? For instance, Chile would arguably be a settler colonist too, since Bolivia claims part of its territory.

I think the fact that lone fighter is using cover justifies a flanking maneuver to get around his cover.

I understand why you believe it justifies depriving an entire population of medical care while they are bombed.

No one believes civilians should be deprived of medical care.

However, medical centers should not be used for military purposes and this concern does not justify allowing them to be used as such, particularly when this military use can lead to the deaths of other people (be they civilians or combatants).

[Pants-of-dog]

This one did, unless you think having a second-class status and paying higher taxes unless you assimilate is not a form of forced assimilation.

This also contradicts your previous claim.

You were talking about forced assimilation as a form of conquest.

Now you are discussing a context after conquest, and have changed your argument to talking about taxation as a form of forced assimilation.

Which argument are you making?

How so?

How about you deal with the taxation as forced assimilation argument here, and leave the forced assimilation as conquest one up there.

Note that the two are mutually exclusive. This means that if one is right and applicable in this context, the other one cannot be.

The fact that Jewish identity, religion and culture remained distinct in the diaspora also suggests continuity of those communities.

Yes, diasporic communities often go to great efforts to maintain continuity.

We are not discussing diasporic communities though. Your argument is about Jewish communities in Israel and Palestine.

If so, then pretty much any country that has border conflicts can be regarded as a settler colonizer.

No. There is a specific economic model associated with settler colonialism.

Would you say so? For instance, Chile would arguably be a settler colonist too, since Bolivia claims part of its territory.

Chile is a settler colonialist state because of its relationship with the Mapuche and other Indigenous communities.

In this respect, Chile, Canada, and the USA are all examples of settler colonialism.

No one believes civilians should be deprived of medical care.

However, medical centers should not be used for military purposes and this concern does not justify allowing them to be used as such, particularly when this military use can lead to the deaths of other people (be they civilians or combatants).

No one is talking about beliefs, except to discuss why you believe it is justified that Israel has deprived civilians of medical care.

While bombing them.

It is simply a fact that Israel has deprived Gazans of hospital access and also injured thousands of them.

[wat0n]

This also contradicts your previous claim.

You were talking about forced assimilation as a form of conquest.

Now you are discussing a context after conquest, and have changed your argument to talking about taxation as a form of forced assimilation.

Which argument are you making?

How can you forcibly assimilate a population that has not been conquered?

How about you deal with the taxation as forced assimilation argument here, and leave the forced assimilation as conquest one up there.

Note that the two are mutually exclusive. This means that if one is right and applicable in this context, the other one cannot be.

This sounds like your usual gaslighting now that you have no counter-arguments.

Why do you support this settler colonialism?

Yes, diasporic communities often go to great efforts to maintain continuity.

We are not discussing diasporic communities though. Your argument is about Jewish communities in Israel and Palestine.

...Jewish communities that were enlarged by the returning diaspora.

No. There is a specific economic model associated with settler colonialism.

Weird, because once such model was hinted out you said it was not settler colonialism.

Chile is a settler colonialist state because of its relationship with the Mapuche and other Indigenous communities.

In this respect, Chile, Canada, and the USA are all examples of settler colonialism.

This does not answer my question.

But since you mention this, are you a settler colonist?

No one is talking about beliefs, except to discuss why you believe it is justified that Israel has deprived civilians of medical care.

While bombing them.

It is simply a fact that Israel has deprived Gazans of hospital access and also injured thousands of them.

It is also a fact Hamas uses medical centers for military purposes and that it is both legal and legitimate to take control of them when this happens.

[Pants-of-dog]

How can you forcibly assimilate a population that has not been conquered?

So you now see the contradiction in your previous argument that forced assimilation is a method of conquest.

So we can now abandon the argument that Muslims conquered Palestine through forced assimilation into Islam.

This sounds like …. settler colonialism?

So now you should show that forced assimilation happened through taxation in Palestine.

...Jewish communities that were enlarged by the returning diaspora.

Yes, exactly. Or in some cases, created entirely from diasporic Jews.

Weird, because once such model was hinted out you said it was not settler colonialism.

Can you rewrite this into a clear sentence, please?

This does not answer my question.

But since you mention this, are you a settler colonist?

I have no idea what you mean by that question.

It is also a fact Hamas uses medical centers for military purposes and that it is both legal and legitimate to take control of them when this happens.

If it a verifiable fact, then please verify it.

So far, the factual evidenc eis one film of a fighter using cover, and a set if tunnels that were used in the past as sleeping quarters.

[wat0n]

So you now see the contradiction in your previous argument that forced assimilation is a method of conquest.

So we can now abandon the argument that Muslims conquered Palestine through forced assimilation into Islam.

I never said this. I said they were forcibly assimilated and that this is a form of settler colonialism.

Note that settler colonialism also requires conquest.

So now you should show that forced assimilation happened through taxation in Palestine.

Sure, people had an incentive to convert to Islam - and learn Arabic since that's the language the Qu'ran is written in - to avoid taxation. This in turn led their children to assimilate into the Arab and Islamic culture.

This is not different from how other instances of what you label as "settler colonialism" was done.

Yes, exactly. Or in some cases, created entirely from diasporic Jews.

...Jews that had provable ties to the region.

Can you rewrite this into a clear sentence, please?

I think this is as clear as it gets.

I have no idea what you mean by that question.

Since Palestine is itself a settler colonial construction, the analogy makes a lot of sense.

In fact, one may as well ask who the real natives to the region are given that there's evidence - genealogical and historical evidence - that the ancient peoples were also migrants. Genealogical evidence from archaeological suggests Canaanites themselves came from the Zagros Mountains.

If it a verifiable fact, then please verify it.

So far, the factual evidenc eis one film of a fighter using cover,

So you don't disagree Hamas uses medical centers for military ends.

and a set if tunnels that were used in the past as sleeping quarters.

Prove this. I don't think this has been verified.

Although even that use, since they housed fighters, is military in nature. A military base does not cease to be such just because soldiers are quartered to sleep there.

[Pants-of-dog]

I never said this. I said they were forcibly assimilated and that this is a form of settler colonialism.

Note that settler colonialism also requires conquest.

Okay.

Now that you have your hypothesis worked out, you now need empirical verification.

Sure, people had an incentive to convert to Islam - and learn Arabic since that's the language the Qu'ran is written in - to avoid taxation. This in turn led their children to assimilate into the Arab and Islamic culture.

This is not different from how other instances of what you label as "settler colonialism" was done.

Your own source shows that the reduced tax revenues from the increasing Muslim population caused significant economic losses. This would mean that the taxers would want to reduce conversion rates.

...Jews that had provable ties to the region.

In the sense that they were Jewish and there was an ancestral connection to the area, but not beyond that. There was no belonging to a community that lived in the area.

I think this is as clear as it gets.

Then I can not address it since I have no idea what you are saying.

So you don't disagree Hamas uses medical centers for military ends.

Yea, I disagree with that claim.

Prove this. I don't think this has been verified.

Although even that use, since they housed fighters, is military in nature. A military base does not cease to be such just because soldiers are quartered to sleep there.

No. There is no evidence that soldiers were quartered there. It was simply sleeping quarters that were not being used at the time.

[wat0n]

Okay.

Now that you have your hypothesis worked out, you now need empirical verification.

I already provided you that.

Your own source shows that the reduced tax revenues from the increasing Muslim population caused significant economic losses. This would mean that the taxers would want to reduce conversion rates.

That happened as the result of mass conversions, precisely because of the tax.

In the sense that they were Jewish and there was an ancestral connection to the area, but not beyond that. There was no belonging to a community that lived in the area.

Diaspora Jews who returned to Palestine before Israel's founding were not, as far as I'm aware, shunned by the local Jewish communities there.

Then I can not address it since I have no idea what you are saying.

If you keep playing dumb, sure.

Yea, I disagree with that claim.

Why? There's footage of that.

No. There is no evidence that soldiers were quartered there. It was simply sleeping quarters that were not being used at the time.

Prove this, and explain why wasn't it accessible from within the rest of the hospital's buildings if it was meant to house patients or staff.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already provided you that.

That happened as the result of mass conversions, precisely because of the tax.

Since you are not supporting your argument, I am going to ignore any claims about Arab settler colonialism.

Diaspora Jews who returned to Palestine before Israel's founding were not, as far as I'm aware, shunned by the local Jewish communities there.

No one claimed they were.

Instead, the claim was that the founding groups of Israel in 1948 were not Jewish communities from within Palestine that had been there since Biblical times.

Why? There's footage of that.

No. The footage shows a single fighter ducking behind cover. It does not show the totality of hospitals in Gaza used in such a way as to require them all being shut down.

That would be required by a structure like settler colonialism or an event like ethnic cleansing.

Prove this, and explain why wasn't it accessible from within the rest of the hospital's buildings if it was meant to house patients or staff.

No, because you will invariably decide that because I did not prove this to your satisfaction, Hamas definitely used the hospital as a command centre despite the complete lack of evidence.

My behaviour has no impact on your lack of evidence.