[Tainari88]

That's the risk of these understandable reactions though. It will get portrayed as such, so it will typically result not in people coming to the table, but an equal (and typically stronger) reaction right back. Makes me wonder if historically which has been more successful? Violent protest or peaceful protest? :?:

In the longer term, Israel will have to concede to some sort of just 2 state solution. It will happen... eventually.

Israel has no real pressure for changing right now. It is getting money from the US in terms of weapons. The US government is WEAK with Israel. They need to sanction and stop all money. Cold turkey cut off. And then make them a pariah and have elections and get rid of Netanyahu. Bibi and his people have to be removed from power ASAP.

[Unthinking Majority]

That's the risk of these understandable reactions though. It will get portrayed as such, so it will typically result not in people coming to the table, but an equal (and typically stronger) reaction right back. Makes me wonder if historically which has been more successful? Violent protest or peaceful protest? :?:

In the longer term, Israel will have to concede to some sort of just 2 state solution. It will happen... eventually.

A 2-state solution is the ideal of course, and one I wish would happen. Unfortunately the Palestinian/Arab leadership do not want a permanent 2-state solution and never have.

During negotiations for the 1947 UN Partition Plan, not only did the Arab negotiators not agree with the details of the plans proposed, they made clear they would not accept any inch of land in Mandatory Palestine being turned into an Israeli state.

During the 2000 Camp David summit it was clear that all Arafat wanted was to gain concessions from Israel and would he stated he would not agree to any deal that made any agreed 2-state borders "final" because their longterm goal was the total elimination of Israel as an country (Zionism) and returning all the land back to Arab control.

Hamas also has in their Charter since the 1980s the same thing as their raison d'etre: the elimination of all of Israel.

Camp David failed so Israel decided to unilaterally de-occupy Gaza and cede terrorial control to Gazans, even though terror attacks by Hamas had been frequently launched from there since Camp David. The Gazan people then immediately democratically elected Hamas for their government in their first elections and Hamas kept launching rocket attacks every few weeks or so at Israeli civilians every ever since.

Abbas seems the most reasonable of Palestinian leadership, and the West Bank settlements are illegal and wrong, but we also have an Israeli leadership and population that feels burned and very distrustful over what has happened since Israel gave back Gaza, so they feel why in the world would they risk also de-occupying the West Bank when it could backfire like Gaza? Abbas won't be leader forever. Hamas/Gaza has hardened Israelis and created the conditions for them to keep re-electing a hardliner like Netanyahu. The last peace-loving dove they elected tried peace and made concessions and Israelis have suffered terrorism ever since, including Oct 7.

There are legit grievances on both sides, the borders of Israel are illegal not even including West Bank, but how do you achieve peace and a 2-state solution when one side doesn't even recognize the others right to exist in any form whatsoever? We all know what "From the river to the sea...." means: the total elimination of Israel from existence.

[wat0n]

There are irredentists on both sides, the real difference between Israel and the Palestinians is that Israel has the ability to rein them in (at least if they have not formed a government) while the Palestinians don't. It doesn't matter what the majority says when you can arm yourself to the teeth and effectively establish a state within a state.

If there was a peace agreement, Israel would have the structures to ensure its irredentists can't stir up trouble but the Palestinians - as things are now at least - don't. And if there's something worse than the current situation, is what would happen if there was a peace agreement that did not in fact cease violence.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's the risk of these understandable reactions though. It will get portrayed as such, so it will typically result not in people coming to the table, but an equal (and typically stronger) reaction right back. Makes me wonder if historically which has been more successful? Violent protest or peaceful protest? :?:

At this point, neither is being allowed. If any discussion of October 7 that is not an explicit condemnation is now antisemitism and will cause a reaction from the defenders of this war, then the only way to not create such a reaction is to censor ourselves and go along with the war.

And one of the reasons we are in this situation is because even academic discussion of the historical event is being treated as extremist. Consequently, silencing such discussion is seems as centrist and mainstream and acceptable.

So we get this outrage theatre where defenders of the war try to shift the debate to how extremist and evil their opponents are.

In the longer term, Israel will have to concede to some sort of just 2 state solution. It will happen... eventually.

Maybe, but right now the system is set up for ethnic cleansing and settling Gaza.

[wat0n]

Do you see Oct 7 as "legitimate resistance"?

This is a great question.

Seeing October 7 as "legitimate resistance" implies justifying it.

What's your answer, @Pants-of-dog?

[Pants-of-dog]

Whether or not some random person on the web thinks it is justified is completely irrelevant to Hamas and its goals and the fact that settler colonialism is going to keep fuelling October 7 attacks.

[wat0n]

So you do justify October 7, but as I said lack the guts to say so.

[QatzelOk]

I have yet to see any disavowal of these people...

Me either. They seem to be robotically attached to their own narrative to the point that they ignore the mass genocide of "other races" who they seem to feel racially superior to.

And of course, one can't really discuss anything with people who consider themselves racially superior to you. These racists will just ignore everyone else's opinions and fact-finding as "inferior."

Do you know anyone like this, wat0n?

The last few "Louis"s were a lot like this, in my recollection. Sun-kings whose sun eventually set.

[wat0n]

Me either. They seem to be robotically attached to their own narrative to the point that they ignore the mass genocide of "other races" who they seem to feel racially superior to.

And of course, one can't really discuss anything with people who consider themselves racially superior to you. These racists will just ignore everyone else's opinions and fact-finding as "inferior."

Do you know anyone like this, wat0n?

The last few "Louis"s were a lot like this, in my recollection. Sun-kings whose sun eventually set.

Are you projecting here? Do you feel racially superior to Jews?

[QatzelOk]

Are you projecting here?

Whenever anyone notices that you are defending genocide, suggest that they are projecting. This will put them on the defensive while the genocide continues.

Do you feel racially superior to Jews?

I don't feel "racial" at all. So I don't compare myself based on racial criteria.

You wish everyone thought and acted as if they were proud members of a race? Proud races tend to commit genocide, wat0n. Doesn't this irk you at all?

Have you zero empathy for the victims of your own racial pride?

[wat0n]

Whenever anyone notices that you are defending genocide, suggest that they are projecting. This will put them on the defensive while the genocide continues.

So you are projecting. The only one supporting genocidal actions like scalping children here is you.

I don't feel "racial" at all. So I don't compare myself based on racial criteria.

You wish everyone thought and acted as if they were proud members of a race? Proud races tend to commit genocide, wat0n. Doesn't this irk you at all?

Have you zero empathy for the victims of your own racial pride?

Race is a bullshit concept.

[Pants-of-dog]

Back to the mass grave at Nasser hospital:

The IDF had the hospital surrounded by January 18th.

This date is important because after this time, there is no possibility of any other military group that could possibly have acted in the hospital after that date.

The first evidence of any burial happens after that date. It is logical to assume that the hospital staff were burying the patients who died from wounds that occurred during the IDF invasion of the city where the hospital is located: Khan Youris.

These patients died because the hospital was isolated at the time and could not receive things like medicine or other essentials.

The IDF then waited for about a month then raided the hospital on February 15.

The dead bodies in the mass grave that were killed by gunshot wounds to the head (and would therefore have died instantly and therefore would not be hospital patients) were almost certainly killed and buried between February 15 and the day the mass grave was exhumed.

[wat0n]

Well, it turns out Palestinian propagandists just took the advantage of the opportunity to bury their dead to do some wartime propaganda. And hospitals like Al Shifa are also often used as morgues.

[Pants-of-dog]

There has yet to be a justification for the people executed by gunshot.

[wat0n]

You have yet to prove they were executed.

[Pants-of-dog]

Whether or not the IDF killed them execution style or through bombing and shooting them during the invasion, the dead are in the mss grave due to the IDF.

[wat0n]

So you are walking back your execution claims?

Then we can discuss why the IDF is fighting in Gaza.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

No, I am not walking back the execution claims that have already been supported in this thread. If you want to challenge the existing evidence, feel free.

Nor am I walking back the claim that the IDF is responsible for every dead body in those graves, including women and children.

The fact that some appear to have been bound and shot is even worse, but it is not a deciding factor in whether or not this is justifiable.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog you have not proven anything.

The video evidence if anything suggests many if not most of those bodies were buried before Israel controlled the hospital.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog you have not proven anything.

The evidence of executions has already been presented in this thread.

The video evidence if anything suggests many if not most of those bodies were buried before Israel controlled the hospital.

That has been addressed.

A timeline of events showing IDF culpability has been presented. So far, there has not been a single criticism of this timeline.