Comment by lossolo

2 years ago

> 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 comments

lossolo

Reply
nostrebored  2 years ago

How do you propose to fight Hamas?

In an ideal world what you’re saying would be true. Hamas could be eradicated without civilian casualties. No children would get hurt.

But you’re not proposing an alternative — and part of the reason is that Hamas has made it explicitly hard to do so.

Is the verdict that any territory that is sufficiently populated can’t be retaliated against?

dotancohen  2 years ago 

  > I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.

The Arabs refused that definition and started a war in an attempt to conquer more land - so complaining that the borders changed from these borders is disingenuous. The Arabs' specific intent was to change those borders.

  > I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties.

I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Hamas did not use children as human shields. If you really want to protect civilians, especially children, then pressure should be on Hamas to release hostages in exchange for a truce, instead of forcing one on Israel.

  • lazyasciiart  2 years ago

    They did not complain the borders had changed - they gave you a definition that they are using. It sounds like there is a contradictory definition you would like them to use and you are being disingenuous in simply complaining about the one they use.

    • dotancohen  2 years ago

      The 1947 UN resolution did not define borders for Palestine. The UN Partition plan defined borders for "A Jewish State" and "An Arab State". Palestine was the name for the geographic area, like "Rocky Mountains", it was not the name of a political entity at the time. Even Arab bodies that used the term, such as the All Palestine Governate, used the term as a geographic term.

      3 replies →