International Hamas launches surprise attack on Israel; Israel has declared a state of war. Vol. VII

[LeonardoBjj]

- Bibi become a ditactor that even Putin cond't be.
All while the genocide criminal is backed by USA.

I imagine the other war criminals at the Sahe,l laugh when USA condem their atrocities. LIke: - Go first take care of your drunk husband!

 

[andnowweknow]

Netanyahu is a lunatic.

 

[Brigfa2]

Al Jazeera is the biggest muslim propaganda source in the world

 

[Brigfa2]

- Bibi become a ditactor that even Putin cond't be.
All while the genocide criminal is backed by USA.

I imagine the other war criminals at the Sahe,l laugh when USA condem their atrocities. LIke: - Go first take care of your drunk husband!

US should back that of course, Israel is their ally. You probably think muslims are saying free Palestine because they are against wars and killings lollllll
They were literally celebrating(i was in my majority muslim home country at that time btw so i know what i'm talking about, i'm not some delusional south american.) when Hamas was killing civilians and if Hamas was doing what Israel doing right now, you wouldn't hear ''no to war, we want peace!'' etc.
Only thing you hear would be ''Victory will be ours ALLAHU AKBAR!''
No one looks at what their side is doing, but you are way too biased to see that. Some countries/people supporting Russia invading Ukraine are crying about Palestine right now. So if Ukraine supporters don't give a fuck about Palestine right now, that would only put them at muslims level.

 

[Siver!]

Al Jazeera is the biggest muslim propaganda source in the world

That's for the people to decide for themselves.

Not to be dictated.

 

[andnowweknow]

Al Jazeera is the biggest muslim propaganda source in the world

Netanyahu did not shut down Al Jazeera because they were broadcasting untruths...he doesn't want Israel's people to see the genocide being waged in their name.

 

[Anewt]

I don't have a problem at all with a foreign country controlling what their media says. However, I'm challenging calling themselves a "secular democracy."

Tough one that for me. Our government is trying to force twitter to comply to their standards. It's pretty silly imo.

The kid who stabbed the bishop. Our government wants all footage removed of it.

Personally I'd prefer access to all information regardless of potential for propaganda.

Considering just how full of of it our media is , it's very much trying to control the narrative.

Be crazy if we end up allowing Chinese levels of authority imo

 

[Strychnine]

Do you think the deals offered to Arafat fully constitute statehood?

What does right to a state mean? Are there certain concessions you could make to the concept of statehood as compared to the one you presumably enjoy? Like, if your state didn't have Autonomy over its water, and had its territory fractured and divided by checkpoints, with its borders controlled by a neighbour, would you still consider it a state?

Maybe this isn't directly related to statehood, but is more cultural - but if members of your country had left, and wanted to come back, would you not consider that a part of legitimate statehood, to be able to enact this return?

I'm just wondering how you can be so strongly supportive of the idea of a Palestinian state, but also feel that Arafat is responsible for rejecting a generous offer. Maybe you have a more elastic concept of the word "state" than I do.

"2000 Camp David Summit: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Yasser Arafat at Camp David to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, Arafat rejected the offer, leading to President Bill Clinton’s observation that "Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything""

There's little doubt that Pres. Clinton wouldn't've recognized an official Palestinian state as he helped broker the deal and it would've increased stability in the region. Then the U.N. would've followed suit quite quickly.

If anything, it would've been a globally recognized starting point, but instead they now have what they have.

If you have nothing and someone offers you something to help you, even if it's not all that you want, it's a start.

 

[Strychnine]

Truce Talks Shift to Qatar as Hamas Hits Israel Border Crossing​

"(Bloomberg) -- Israel closed the Kerem Shalom humanitarian crossing into Gaza on Sunday after a rocket barrage was fired by Hamas, as weekend talks on a potential truce broke up inconclusively.

The status of the talks was unclear after the latest round in Cairo: Hamas officials said their negotiators had returned to Qatar to consult with the group’s political leadership. CIA Director William Burns was also leaving Cairo for consultations in Qatar, Reuters reported."

MSN

 

[Siver!]

Truce Talks Shift to Qatar as Hamas Hits Israel Border Crossing​

"(Bloomberg) -- Israel closed the Kerem Shalom humanitarian crossing into Gaza on Sunday after a rocket barrage was fired by Hamas, as weekend talks on a potential truce broke up inconclusively.

The status of the talks was unclear after the latest round in Cairo: Hamas officials said their negotiators had returned to Qatar to consult with the group’s political leadership. CIA Director William Burns was also leaving Cairo for consultations in Qatar, Reuters reported."

MSN

Small point, but I'm not sure how the media can be aware that there are multiple armed groups in Gaza, but it's always Hamas?

I honestly don't know, I'm not pretending to know, but it's perfectly plausible to me that Hamas are engaging in peace talks, but some other group is firing rockets to try and destabilize those talks?

Just thinking out loud to be honest.

 

[Strychnine]

Small point, but I'm not sure how the media can be aware that there are multiple armed groups in Gaza, but it's always Hamas?

I honestly don't know, I'm not pretending to know, but it's perfectly plausible to me that Hamas are engaging in peace talks, but some other group is firing rockets to try and destabilize those talks?

Just thinking out loud to be honest.

Yeah, I just thought that the article was pertinent to the thread. I'm more than willing to hear from other sources.

 

[Siver!]

Yeah, I just thought that the article was pertinent to the thread. I'm more than willing to hear from other sources.

Yeah, man, I don't know. No idea who did what.

Just struck me that the old hospital strike was by a group called PIJ, yet I'm pretty sure everyone just remembers it as 'Hamas'.

I think Hamas are ridiculous enough to have done this, but in a conflict where nobody seems to be able to know or prove who is who, it seems weird that the media always just label everything Hamas.

 

[Samjj]

Small point, but I'm not sure how the media can be aware that there are multiple armed groups in Gaza, but it's always Hamas?

I honestly don't know, I'm not pretending to know, but it's perfectly plausible to me that Hamas are engaging in peace talks, but some other group is firing rockets to try and destabilize those talks?

Just thinking out loud to be honest.

Hamas took responsibility for the strike.

They support the development of a humanitarian crisis as a means of leveraging diplomatic pressure against Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-claims-responsibility-attack-israel-gaza-border-crossing-casualties-2024-05-05/

 

[iwannabeadored]

Do you think the deals offered to Arafat fully constitute statehood?

What does right to a state mean? Are there certain concessions you could make to the concept of statehood as compared to the one you presumably enjoy? Like, if your state didn't have Autonomy over its water, and had its territory fractured and divided by checkpoints, with its borders controlled by a neighbour, would you still consider it a state?

Maybe this isn't directly related to statehood, but is more cultural - but if members of your country had left, and wanted to come back, would you not consider that a part of legitimate statehood, to be able to enact this return?

I'm just wondering how you can be so strongly supportive of the idea of a Palestinian state, but also feel that Arafat is responsible for rejecting a generous offer. Maybe you have a more elastic concept of the word "state" than I do.

"2000 Camp David Summit: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Yasser Arafat at Camp David to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, Arafat rejected the offer, leading to President Bill Clinton’s observation that "Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything""

There's little doubt that Pres. Clinton wouldn't've recognized an official Palestinian state as he helped broker the deal and it would've increased stability in the region. Then the U.N. would've followed suit quite quickly.

If anything, it would've been a globally recognized starting point, but instead they now have what they have.

If you have nothing and someone offers you something to help you, even if it's not all that you want, it's a start.

You’ve been debunked already. Give it a rest. You’re quoting an article not the other bullshit that was offered. Keep gaslighting

 

[Siver!]

Hamas took responsibility for the strike.

They support the development of a humanitarian crisis as a means of leveraging diplomatic pressure against Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-claims-responsibility-attack-israel-gaza-border-crossing-casualties-2024-05-05/

Good to see a targeted strike from Israel against actual terrorists, who predictably can't hit their own actual targets, despite being labeled an existential threat.

 

[Stump]

"2000 Camp David Summit: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Yasser Arafat at Camp David to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, Arafat rejected the offer, leading to President Bill Clinton’s observation that "Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything""

There's little doubt that Pres. Clinton wouldn't've recognized an official Palestinian state as he helped broker the deal and it would've increased stability in the region. Then the U.N. would've followed suit quite quickly.

If anything, it would've been a globally recognized starting point, but instead they now have what they have.

If you have nothing and someone offers you something to help you, even if it's not all that you want, it's a start.

Okay, so that's a totally different claim, then, isn't it?

You actually don't believe that the Palestinians deserve a state, you believe that the Palestinians should accept whatever is offered to them on the presumption that maybe it would be a foothold towards an actual state at some future point, depending on the magnanimity of Israel.

I think these are very obviously categorically different things. And, I think if this situation were one that you lived in, and you were offered this deal, you'd likewise reject it.

The point of this though is that it is unfair to say that the palestinians were offered statehood. You can say that they were offered a generous offer, or that it was the best offer they had been offered to that point and the wise strategic move would have been to have taken the offer. Arafat didn't sink the boat just to be a stick in the mud.

But you can't say that what was on the table constituted a dignified statehood with the necessary components that the concept of a state entails like right to return and control of their borders.

And this is only about the details of the actual offer. Another, massive and important aspect was Israel's behavior during these negotiations, specifically the furthering of settlement activities.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Okay, so that's a totally different claim, then, isn't it?

You actually don't believe that the Palestinians deserve a state, you believe that the Palestinians should accept whatever is offered to them on the presumption that maybe it would be a foothold towards an actual state at some future point, depending on the magnanimity of Israel.

I think these are very obviously categorically different things. And, I think if this situation were one that you lived in, and you were offered this deal, you'd likewise reject it.

The point of this though is that it is unfair to say that the palestinians were offered statehood. You can say that they were offered a generous offer, or that it was the best offer they had been offered to that point and the wise strategic move would have been to have taken the offer. Arafat didn't sink the boat just to be a stick in the mud.

But you can't say that what was on the table constituted a dignified statehood with the necessary components that the concept of a state entails like right to return and control of their borders.

And this is only about the details of the actual offer. Another, massive and important aspect was Israel's behavior during these negotiations, specifically the furthering of settlement activities.

Why are you saying that’s not a legitimate offer of statehood? It was. It wasn’t the deal Arafat wanted, but it was a legitimate offer. I mean was it in the offer somewhere that they couldn’t control their borders

 

[Stump]

Why are you saying that’s not a legitimate offer of statehood? It was. It wasn’t the deal Arafat wanted, but it was a legitimate offer. I mean was it in the offer somewhere that they couldn’t control their borders

Yes. Full control lf borders and resources was not included. you can make the argument it was a strategic blunder and they'd have eventually gotten a legitimate offer of actual statehood over the long term, but you cant say it was an offer of full, legitimate statehood that was rejected for some other reasons to do with Arafat being unreasonable.

The point of this is to say that the narrative that the Palestinians were offered what they wanted - and, according to @Strychnine , deserve - and this just didn't happen because Arafat was an asshole, is not true.

 

[kflo]

Okay, so that's a totally different claim, then, isn't it?

You actually don't believe that the Palestinians deserve a state, you believe that the Palestinians should accept whatever is offered to them on the presumption that maybe it would be a foothold towards an actual state at some future point, depending on the magnanimity of Israel.

I think these are very obviously categorically different things. And, I think if this situation were one that you lived in, and you were offered this deal, you'd likewise reject it.

The point of this though is that it is unfair to say that the palestinians were offered statehood. You can say that they were offered a generous offer, or that it was the best offer they had been offered to that point and the wise strategic move would have been to have taken the offer. Arafat didn't sink the boat just to be a stick in the mud.

But you can't say that what was on the table constituted a dignified statehood with the necessary components that the concept of a state entails like right to return and control of their borders.

And this is only about the details of the actual offer. Another, massive and important aspect was Israel's behavior during these negotiations, specifically the furthering of settlement activities.

It’s fascinating that even with the benefit of hindsight you can say you would have rejected it. Do you think it worked out better or worse for them?

 

[mjfan23]

Human rights chief warns Israeli relocation order is a "serious violation of international law"
From CNN’s Eve Brennan and Sarah El Sirgany

Human rights chief is a terrorist supporter and international laws are antisemitic