Comment by underdeserver
2 years ago
No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza.
The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
> No, the majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and until 2005 when Israel left Gaza, its occupation of Gaza.
I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg
> The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142847
The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.
Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
> The term "Israel's occupation of Palestine" is overloaded. It depends on how you define Palestine. Hamas defines it as all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.
> The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.
I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties. There are accusations of Israel committing war crimes. Recently, an independent investigation into the killing of a Reuters journalist suggested that it was a deliberate attack by the IDF on civilians, constituting a war crime. They told Palestinians to go south to be safe and then they bombed them there. Responding to atrocities from 7th of October with further atrocities is not justifiable. The strategy to eradicate Hamas might be counterproductive, potentially leading to the creation of more militants than are eliminated, due to the civilian casualties caused.
> Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas, but there has been a loss of world support due to the methods employed. Even the US, as indicated by Blinken either today or yesterday, has stated that there are insufficient efforts being made to protect civilian lives and that Israel is saying one thing but the reality and numbers coming from Gaza says something different.
11 replies →
Anyone using that "map" is not arguing in good faith, that map shows borders that never actually existed.
The map in 1946 is false, since all of it was British, zero of it was Arab or Jewish.
The UN plan never happened.
The 1967 map pretends like there was a country "Palestine" when there never has been.
And the 2010 map is just straight up fiction.
That map uses the word "Palestine" with three different definitions:
1. The geographical area of Palestine, also often called The Holy Land among other names, that was not inhabited by Jews.
2. The area that the UN Partition Plan designated for an Arab state.
3. The areas that the Palestinian Authority has both civil and military control over.
The problem with the first definition is obvious: It displays a geographical area with a racial modifier. That would be like showing a map of France with all the areas where French people live highlighted, then assuming that 100% of the remaining areas are "Immigrant Land". In reality, the far majority of the land was not settled by Jews nor Arabs in time frame of this map - it was so empty that the Ottomans created laws specifically to increase both Arab and Jewish settlement in the area, they didn't care so long as the taxes were paid.
The UN Partition Plan was not perfect, but it for the most part proposed an Arab state in the areas that were Arab majority, and a Jewish state in the areas with a Jewish majority. The Arabs rejected this plan in an attempt to conquer more land - so complaining that the borders changed from these borders is disingenuous. The Arabs started a war (well, more than one) with the specific intent of changing these borders.