Nah, I think people just didn’t get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians.
Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people.
In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power.
I was taking about Gaza, since that’s where Hamas is primarily active, and that’s what the original comment was about. That’s why I was focusing on Gaza.
I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land.
Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground.
They weren’t in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome?
Didn’t Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza?
I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions.
Sure, maybe, you’re right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have.
But why shift it on Hamas when it’s Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I’m asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I’m not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it’s vicinity in one night (which happened already)
Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence.
For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it’s implemented properly, yes.
Your answer is basically “suffer forever so nobody dies trying to stop the suffering”.
Well, yeah, if you care about lives on both sides…
That’s a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to “suffer forever” isn’t caring for them.
It’s like you didn’t even read what he said.
Nah, I think people just didn’t get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians.
Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people.
Use the /s
So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops)
I don’t really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that.
Why would a two state solution continue the suffering?
In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power.
Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007.
They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic.
I was taking about Gaza, since that’s where Hamas is primarily active, and that’s what the original comment was about. That’s why I was focusing on Gaza.
I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land.
Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground.
They weren’t in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome?
A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank.
As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border.
The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza.
Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid.
Didn’t Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza?
Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements.
I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions.
That’s saying “the beatings will continue until morale improves”.
It’s an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities.
Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor.
The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this.
Sure, maybe, you’re right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have.
But why shift it on Hamas when it’s Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I’m asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I’m not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it’s vicinity in one night (which happened already)
Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence.
For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it’s implemented properly, yes.