[wat0n]

They were nothing else. Their objective was to provoke exactly what occurred, satisfying Hamas leadership and radicalizing a new generation.

I highly doubt Hamas expected it would be left to fight basically alone in Gaza.

Also, this type of massacre would not go unanswered anywhere else. 9/11 didn't go unanswered, Bataclan didn't go unanswered, let's not even bother looking at China, Russia or other examples.

Palestinean citizens aren't allowed to evacuate, which is a point against Israel.

The situation is different, too. We went through this.

The coalition did not lead the operation against ISIS in Mosul.

In any case, you're begging the question - Coalition operations in Iraq also often approached what I consider to be criminal behavior and I support the extradition of much of the Bush administration to the ICC.

I've yet to see anyone seriously calling to send Obama or Trump to the ICC over Mosul.

[Fasces]

Also, this type of massacre would not go unanswered anywhere else. 9/11 didn't go unanswered, Bataclan didn't go unanswered, let's not even bother looking at China, Russia or other examples.

You rely a lot on the "if all my friends jumped off a cliff, it's reasonable that I do it too" argument.

Few people criticizing the Israeli response to Oct 7 do not also criticize the American response to Sep 11.

We don't decapitate entire villages and sell survivors into slavery anymore. The idea that we're at some pinnacle of ethical conduct and can't expect to continue to improve implied by the argument is absurd.

I've yet to see anyone seriously calling to send Obama or Trump to the ICC over Mosul.

Mosul was led by Iraq, not Obama or Trump. Now if we're talking about their use of drone warfare - yes, there have been similar calls.

[wat0n]

You rely a lot on the "if all my friends jumped off a cliff, it's reasonable that I do it too" argument.

Few people criticizing the Israeli response to Oct 7 do not also criticize the American response to Sep 11.

We don't decapitate entire villages and sell survivors into slavery anymore. The idea that we're at some pinnacle of ethical conduct and can't expect to continue to improve implied by the argument is absurd.

Few people criticize toppling the Taliban or killing Osama, actually. Most criticism focuses on the Iraq War and a big part of it is that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and that he had no WMDs.

I don't see much if any criticism of e.g. France bombing Syria over the Bataclan.

Mosul was led by Iraq, not Obama or Trump. Now if we're talking about their use of drone warfare - yes, there have been similar calls.

That doesn't absolve the US from responsibility. The USAF could have always denied air support requests it believed were illegal, and I assume it did.

[Pants-of-dog]

The only counter argument made to the claim of ethnic cleansing was “Egypt will not like that”.

There seems to be no reason why Egypt would not want this. Especially since the policy papers suggest that Egypt would be given a certain amount of funding for each Palestinian refugee. This would create a massive influx of cash that may or may jot be spent on the refugees.

[wat0n]

The only counter argument made to the claim of ethnic cleansing was “Egypt will not like that”.

There seems to be no reason why Egypt would not want this. Especially since the policy papers suggest that Egypt would be given a certain amount of funding for each Palestinian refugee. This would create a massive influx of cash that may or may jot be spent on the refugees.

Egypt has already said it won't allow any mass movement of Palestinians into its territory.

[Pants-of-dog]

Egypt already has thousands of Palestinian refugees there. More arrive each day.

If Israel was to start paying Egypt for taking them, the definition of “mass movement” could easily be narrowed to accommodate Israeli “security concerns”.

If the only counter evidence for ethnic cleansing is an unsubstantiated claim of Egyptian reluctance, then we can safely assume that the Israeli government is moving forward with the aforementioned policy proposals.

[wat0n]

Egypt already has thousands of Palestinian refugees there. More arrive each day.

If Israel was to start paying Egypt for taking them, the definition of “mass movement” could easily be narrowed to accommodate Israeli “security concerns”.

If the only counter evidence for ethnic cleansing is an unsubstantiated claim of Egyptian reluctance, then we can safely assume that the Israeli government is moving forward with the aforementioned policy proposals.

How many have arrived into Egypt? The Egyptians have only taken people needing urgent medical care and foreigners, that's it.

[Fasces]

Few people criticize toppling the Taliban or killing Osama, actually.

The Taliban wasn't toppled, but sure - I'm talking more about the same protestors criticizing Israel, not the political establishment.

I don't see much if any criticism of e.g. France bombing Syria over the Bataclan.

I'm happy to do so.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, Egypt is currently trying to limit the number of Palestinian refugees because they believe Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza.

Egypt’s reluctance actually corroborates the claim,

[wat0n]

The Taliban wasn't toppled,

It remained out of power for 20 years.

but sure - I'm talking more about the same protestors criticizing Israel, not the political establishment.

There were no major protests against the war in Afghanistan as far as I'm aware.

I'm happy to do so.

It's kinda late for that, don't you think?

Yes, Egypt is currently trying to limit the number of Palestinian refugees because they believe Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza.

Egypt’s reluctance actually corroborates the claim,

And yet that cannot happen with Egypt's consent, unless Israel wants to end its peace with Egypt.

Furthermore, Egypt is limiting the passage of Palestinians because Hamas is a threat to its own security.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ethnic cleansing if Gaza can happen with or without Egypt’s consent.

And Israel has already proposed a solution for gaining Egypt’s consent anyway.

This whole counter argument does not refute Israel ethnically cleansing Gaza. At best, it claims that Egypt is a reluctant partner in said ethnic cleansing rather than a willing partner.

[Fasces]

It remained out of power for 20 years.

Not everywhere, not consistently and not permanently. I'm sure Israel would be happy with that result.

There were no major protests against the war in Afghanistan as far as I'm aware.

Nonetheless, the same posters and organizations that opposed the war in Afghanistan - of which there are many in the long 20 years of that fetid and useless conflict - are against the Israeli intervention also.

It's kinda late for that, don't you think?

You brought it up, not me. Nonetheless, if you look up the French interventions in Libya or the interventions in Syria here on PoFo, or look up the same organizations protesting now - they are consistently in opposition to the normalization of indiscriminate bombing of civilians, especially revenge bombing.

If your entire reasoning is that 'Israel has the right of revenge', then so be it - eye for an eye policy is short-sighted and self defeating, but people are entitled to their opinions.

[wat0n]

Ethnic cleansing if Gaza can happen with or without Egypt’s consent.

Not if Israel wants to keep its peace treaty with Egypt.

And Israel has already proposed a solution for gaining Egypt’s consent anyway.

Which one?

This whole counter argument does not refute Israel ethnically cleansing Gaza. At best, it claims that Egypt is a reluctant partner in said ethnic cleansing rather than a willing partner.

That's not how this works. It is you who has to prove Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza.

Not everywhere, not consistently and not permanently. I'm sure Israel would be happy with that result.

Fortunately, the geography in both Gaza and the West Bank is not like Afghanistan's.

Nonetheless, the same posters and organizations that opposed the war in Afghanistan - of which there are many in the long 20 years of that fetid and useless conflict - are against the Israeli intervention also.

Back in 2001 you say? Nope.

You brought it up, not me. Nonetheless, if you look up the French interventions in Libya or the interventions in Syria here on PoFo, or look up the same organizations protesting now - they are consistently in opposition to the normalization of indiscriminate bombing of civilians, especially revenge bombing.

If your entire reasoning is that 'Israel has the right of revenge', then so be it - eye for an eye policy is short-sighted and self defeating, but people are entitled to their opinions.

Israel has the right to stop Hamas' attacks against its civilian population.

Also, I don't think Libya ever attacked France.

[Skynet]

Israel could give up the conquered territories (line 1967) and live in peace but there is a prophecy, Netanyahu will be the last Israeli ruler until the Messiaha shows up:

[Fasces]

Israel has the right to stop Hamas' attacks against its civilian population.

Only to a certain extent.

[wat0n]

Only to a certain extent.

I assume you meant to say only in a certain way.

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog The topic is indeed genocide(which you mention incessantly about everything, thereby cheapening the actual meaning) and ethnic cleansing, so shove your sanctimonious, disingenuous head where the sun doesn't shine. You just can't form a cogent response to what I said, because it is FACT.

[starman2003]

What you wrote above is mere fantasy. Even if a Palestinian exodus happened to Egypt or Jordan, they'd ask the US and Israel for money or assistance or whatever

They're not that wimpy. Both nations have publicly opposed a transfer or exodus of palestinians onto their territory, in strong terms. Accepting refugees voluntarily and even asking for money to care for them would be to legitimize Israel's ethnic cleansing --and they're quite determined to oppose that. They'd have to do something fairly drastic or they'd look awful wimpy in the eyes of their own people and the whole region, ultimately even jeopardizing those regimes, as passions are running high.

else rather than ceasing the peace treaties with Israel. They'd also vehemently ask Israel to stop the violence, of course, but I wonder if they'd go further than that.

They wouldn't openly abrogate the treaties (yet) but just cease diplomatic and other relations, which would mean a de facto end to the treaties, if prolonged.

[ingliz]

Qatar emir condemns genocide in Gaza.

In his opening remarks at the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in Doha on Tuesday, the emir accused Israel of committing a “genocide” in Gaza, noting that the “crimes” of Israeli forces help “deepen the sentiment of injustice and an absence of international legitimacy.”

— Al Jazeera 5 Dec 2023

[Godstud]

@ingliz Of course Qatar will do that, since they are against Israel, as well. Israel isn't Islamic, after all. Bless your heart for not picking up on the obvious.