Israel-Hamas Thread II

[Benaiah468]

The new report by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) bears the dramatic title Solidarity as a Crime - Voices for Palestine Under Fire and purports to document the allegedly repressive treatment of pro-Palestinian movements by Western democracies. Between the lines, the organization makes serious accusations against countries such as Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States. They are accused of suppressing legitimate protest against Israel's government policy and criminalizing “solidarity with Palestine.”

But the report conceals what this is really about.

Anyone who has witnessed such demonstrations in Berlin, London, or Paris over the past two years has seen it: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” chanted the crowds, a slogan that means nothing less than the demand for the destruction of Israel.

When people shout this slogan, they are not talking about borders, they are talking about the end of the Jewish state. When they carry posters describing Israeli soldiers as “child murderers,” this is not political discourse, but old anti-Semitic rhetoric in new packaging.

The Samidoun network, which is now banned in Germany, is considered by the FIDH to be an example of “repressive measures” against civil society. No mention is made of the fact that on the day of the massacre in Berlin, the same organization publicly celebrated the death of Jews. No mention is made of the fact that it never distanced itself from terrorism, but instead ideologically glossed it over as “resistance.”

It is telling that the FIDH report almost consistently refers to Hamas as a “resistance movement” and criticizes its classification as a terrorist organization. Anyone who argues in this way undermines the core of the international human rights concept: the protection of life. An organization that commits massacres against civilians, uses children as human shields, and mistreats hostages cannot be a legitimate actor.

Anyone familiar with European history knows how dangerous it is to disguise anti-Semitic stereotypes as “resistance.” The idea that one can fight for freedom by denying the Jewish state's right to exist is not new, it is a rehash of an age-old pattern.

Human rights without moral distinction lose their substance. An organization that relativizes violence by interpreting it politically betrays its own mandate.

The FIDH report aims to protect solidarity, but it protects the wrong people. There is a line between legitimate criticism and anti-Semitic incitement that must not be blurred. The West has a duty to protect its Jewish citizens and to tell the truth: those who celebrate the death of Jews or want to wipe out Israel are not committing an act of solidarity, but an attack on humanity itself.

 

[Desk trauma]

There is a line between legitimate criticism and anti-Semitic incitement that must not be blurred.

Yeah! Only Zionist groups get to do that!

 

[Benaiah468]

After months of behind-the-scenes negotiations, a new chapter in the post-war order of the Middle East is taking shape. Western diplomats have confirmed that a resolution is currently being prepared in the UN Security Council that would allow for the deployment of an international security force in Gaza, with a clear political signal: Egypt is to take the lead, supported by Turkey, Indonesia, and Azerbaijan.

In addition to Egypt, Turkish, Indonesian, and Azerbaijani contingents are to be involved, a symbolic mix of Muslim states with different loyalties. While Indonesia is considered a neutral player, Turkey's possible participation is met with skepticism in Jerusalem. In recent years, Ankara has repeatedly shown political closeness to Hamas and sharply criticized Israel's security strategy in Gaza.

But the biggest hurdle remains: disarming Hamas. British diplomats openly admit that this is the “most complex and risky part” of the project. The UN is considering a model similar to the Northern Ireland peace process, in which a neutral authority monitored the surrender of weapons. But no one seriously believes that Hamas will voluntarily give up its military power.

According to Israeli estimates, despite massive losses, the terrorist organization still has thousands of light weapons, dozens of rocket launchers, and a dense tunnel system that would be almost impossible to control, even for international observers.

“If Hamas hands over its weapons to a Palestinian authority, not to the UN, it will sell this as a victory, not a defeat,” according to Israeli security circles. “And who will verify that disarmament is actually taking place?”

Israel is therefore demanding a security zone along the border that remains under Israeli control, as a guarantee against a renewed build-up of terror. Without this protection, Jerusalem says, no international mission can truly secure the country.

Another political surprise: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is to take on a leading role in a so-called “peace council mission.” The council, which is to consist of 15 Palestinian and international representatives, would serve to implement the peace process on a technical level, under the chairmanship of Donald Trump himself.

The role of the PA remains unclear. Foreign Minister Warssen Aghabkian recently spoke at a conference in Italy about “learning from the mistakes of the past,” emphasizing educational reforms and institutional development, but also expressing doubts: “You cannot teach children about peace as long as they experience checkpoints, expropriations, and destruction.”

For Israel, this sounds like déjà vu: the same rhetoric, the same accusations, but no guarantee of security.

On paper, the Egyptian-led security alliance sounds like stability. But in reality, it remains a risky experiment. No state, neither Egypt, nor Turkey, nor Indonesia, has any interest in truly disempowering Hamas. And no one will take on the risk for Israel that is associated with incomplete disarmament.

The Gaza Strip is at the beginning of a new order that is already showing cracks. Israel knows that no international mandate, however well intentioned it may be, can replace responsibility for its own security.

 

[rjs330]

The returnees from the tunnels of Gaza smiled, they waved, some were in shock. But anyone who visits them today can sense how fragile this moment of deliverance was. Two years of darkness, violence, hunger, and isolation cannot simply be shaken off. Now that they are sleeping in their own beds again, they must learn what it means to live again.

Rom Breslawski's family is currently trying to raise one million shekels (300,000 USD). His body is emaciated, his soul exhausted. “Rom was alone, abused, in complete darkness for months,” says his cousin Liron Oberländer, who started the fundraising campaign. “He had hardly any contact with other people and was sometimes chained up. Now he has to learn to be part of the world again.”

Since his return, Rom has spoken very little. He avoids screens and withdraws into himself. “He doesn't want a phone. He just wants to see the sky,” his family says. Two years without windows, without daylight, and now an almost childlike desire for light, for freedom, for normality. His family is accompanying him carefully, step by step. “We are slowly bringing him back to life. Everything at his own pace.”

Even more drastic is the fate of Elkana Buchbut, who worked as a member of the technical team at the Nova Festival. He was abducted at dawn on Oct 7 and spent over two years in the tunnels of Hamas. His mother Ruhama describes the unimaginable: “He was chained, barely allowed to move, and in all that time they let him shower once.”

His body is scarred, his muscles weakened, his soul traumatized. His family describes it as “survival in the shadow of humanity.” Now Elkana struggles with pain in his legs and back, suffers from panic attacks, nightmares, and feelings of guilt. “The return is not the end of captivity,” says his mother. “It is its echo.”

Guy Gilboa Dalal, also kidnapped from the Nova crowd, spent two years in a tunnel cell. No daylight, no food, beatings, humiliation. His family writes: “He survived because he held on to hope.” Now he needs psychotherapy, medical care, and rest, but above all, time. “He has to learn how to live again,” says his brother Gal, who fought for his release for two years.

Israel's government supports the families with financial aid, but rebuilding bodies and souls cannot be mandated by law. What they need are people who will help them carry what they can no longer bear alone.

They were victims of horror, and they are witnesses to survival.

Thank you for the information. As soon as the hostages were released I was filled with joy, and sorrow. I knew they would not come out unscathed in body, mind and soul. It will be a long process for them to recover and many never will. I hope they will not just retreat into themselves, but consistently and honestly continue to share their stories. I think that will help the healing. We gave seen that work for other trauma victims. May God bless them with strength and healing.

“The LORD is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.” – Psalm 34:18

 

[Benaiah468]

Mohammed Nazzal, a member of Hamas' political bureau and one of the organization's most influential strategists, spoke unusually candidly in Doha. “I can't answer yes or no,” he said when asked whether Hamas was prepared to surrender its weapons. “It depends on what the project means – and to whom the weapons are to be handed over.” This wording may sound diplomatic, but politically it means the opposite: Hamas wants to remain armed.

Donald Trump's peace initiative sets out a clear sequence of events: the release of all hostages, the return of the bodies, the disarmament of Hamas and the transfer of administration to a technocratic committee under international supervision. Israel has agreed to this sequence because it makes security a prerequisite for any political solution. But Hamas is playing for time. Although all surviving hostages have been released, many bodies remain missing and the weapons have not been surrendered.

‘Hamas must be completely disarmed. No ifs, no buts,’ the Israeli Prime Minister's Office said on Friday. ‘They committed to this and they have not done it.’ Jerusalem sees Nazzal's statements as clear proof that Hamas is abusing the ceasefire to consolidate its position of power.

In fact, armed Hamas fighters are returning to the streets. Officially, they are supposed to take on ‘security tasks’ and protect aid convoys, but in reality this means restoring internal control. Nazzal himself confirmed that Hamas would remain ‘present on the ground’ while a civilian transitional administration was being set up. This is ‘necessary to maintain order,’ he said.

While calling for international aid for reconstruction, Hamas is executing people in Gaza whom it accuses of collaborating with Israel. Nazzal justified the public executions by saying that they were ‘exceptional measures in wartime’.

It is cynical that the terrorist organisation is calling for a five-year ceasefire in the same breath.

Behind the seemingly diplomatic language lies an unchanged ideology: Hamas sees weapons not as a means to an end, but as part of its identity. Those who lay down their arms lose power. That is why any attempt to negotiate disarmament with Hamas is a political contradiction in terms.

For Israel, this is a red rag. Any presence of armed Hamas members in Gaza undermines the foundations of the ceasefire and allows the terrorist organisation to continue to exist as the de facto government. Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasised that Israel will not tolerate a ceasefire that leaves Hamas with military or political structures.

Donald Trump's plan, which focuses on control, disarmament and transitional administration, is thus hanging in the balance.

When Nazzal says that the weapons could perhaps be surrendered ‘later,’ he means that Hamas will never surrender them. And that is precisely why, without real change, Gaza remains just one thing: a place where ceasefires end as soon as the terrorists believe they are strong enough again.

 

[Benaiah468]

After just over a week, the terrorist organization Hamas broke the ceasefire again. Today "Palestinian" fighters fired anti-tank missiles at Israeli engineering vehicles in Rafah, in the south of the Gaza Strip, just a few hundred meters from the border.

The Israeli military responded immediately. Fighter jets attacked several targets in Rafah and later in Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip. According to Israeli security sources, tunnel openings, weapons depots, and Hamas positions were destroyed. At least six terrorists are reported to have been killed.

A US government representative confirmed that Israel had informed the United States in advance of its intended response. This makes it clear that the military response was coordinated, not impulsive.

As is often the case after attacks from Gaza, Hamas is attempting to deny responsibility. Political official Izzat al-Rishq claimed that Israel was violating the agreement and only looking for excuses to commit new crimes. At the same time, the military wing of Hamas stated that it was not aware of any fighting in Rafah because the areas in question were under Israeli control.

These contradictory statements are typical of Hamas' strategy: first carry out the attack, then shift the blame, and finally present themselves as victims, a well-known pattern designed to secure international sympathy.

Two days ago, Israeli soldiers in Rafah and Khan Yunis had already discovered terrorists emerging from a tunnel. They were attacked from the air to prevent an escalation.

Israel's actions are intended to send a clear message: the ceasefire is not a carte blanche for terrorism. While Hamas representatives continue to talk of ‘resistance,’ Jerusalem has made it clear that any breach of the agreement will be met with a military response.

At the same time, the Israeli leadership emphasised that it would adhere to the agreement in principle, as long as the other side did the same. Responsibility for the escalation lay solely with Hamas, which had been systematically using civilians as human shields for years and was preparing new attacks even during periods of relative calm.

 

[Benaiah468]

Mahmud Abbas speaks in Europe of peace, reconciliation and a two-state solution. But his own party, Fatah, and the PLO, of which he is chairman, still uphold documents that deny Israel's right to exist. The West hears what it wants to hear, but anyone who reads the original Arabic text will see that nothing has changed.

This is because Abbas' political superstructure, the PLO and his own Fatah party, have never legally recognised Israel's right to exist anywhere. The much-cited ‘recognition of 1993’ was an exchange of letters, not a legal act.

On Sep 9 1993, Yasser Arafat wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on behalf of the PLO:

‘The PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.’

These lines were celebrated in the West as a historic turning point. But they had no legal character. The PLO Charter, the organisation's basic law, remained unchanged. To this day, Article 19 states:

‘the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal,’

And Article 9 states unequivocally:

‘Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.’

Arafat promised to delete these sentences. In 1996, the PLO Central Council met in Gaza to allegedly ‘revise’ the charter. However, a new version was never published, never adopted, never ratified. To this day, the document remains valid in its old form.

This means that, according to "Palestinian" law, Israel is illegal. Any recognition by Abbas or his officials would be a legal violation of their own constitution.

Even Fatah itself, the largest faction of the PLO, adheres to its founding programme.

Article 22 of its charter describes Israel as a

‘colonial product’

that cannot be recognised.

Article 7 praises

‘the armed struggle of the people’

as a legitimate means.

And at the 7th Fatah Congress in 2016, this line was confirmed without any changes to its content.

In the official Fatah schoolbooks for children, Israel is portrayed as a ‘Zionist entity’ that was ‘established on "Palestinian" soil’. The State of Israel does not exist on any map.

Anyone visiting Abbas in Ramallah will see a world map on which only one country is marked between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River: "Palestine".

Article 1 of the "Palestinian" Basic Law of 2003 states:

‘Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation’.

Their identity is based on their Arab and Islamic heritage.

Article 4 states:

‘The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation.’

And in the preamble, the law explicitly refers to the PLO Charter as its ideological basis. This makes any legal recognition of Israel impossible under its own legal system, even if Abbas wanted it. So anyone who claims today that Abbas could ‘implement peace’ misunderstands the structure: He is not free to act, even if he wanted to. For his legitimacy is based on a system that denies the Jewish state.

For Fatah and the PLO, Israel is not a neighbour, but a mistake.

For Israel, this means that there is no reliable negotiating partner on the "Palestinian" side. A peace built on legally untenable foundations cannot last. As long as the PLO Charter declares Israel ‘null and void,’ any agreement is merely a tactical interlude, not an end to the conflict.

 

[eclipsenow]

We have let Israel break international law for too long - enabled and encourage them to do so.

Lasting peace in the Middle East would require the following additional EXTREMELY DIFFICULT compromises from Israel, then Palestinians:

ISRAEL'S COMPROMISES

1. GET ISRAEL TO GRANT THE RIGHT FOR PALESTINE TO EXIST!
While many Israeli citizens disagree - the government is incredibly racist and hostile to Palestinians - and denies Palestine the right to exist. They have occupied the Palestinian territories AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW for nearly 80 years now. All because America backs them and enables them to! Under Trump and MAGA, America has abandoned any pretence of being in this club we call 'western civilisation.' They're not going to force Israel to do anything Israel don't want to!

2. KICK 500,000 ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTERS OUT OF THE WEST BANK
Israel have ignored the United Nations since the start of this thing, even though in 1947 the UN were biased towards Israel. Jews were only a third of the people living in the British Mandate at the time - and yet the UN gave them 55% of the land. When this was announced the Arabs protested and some violence broke out - and Israel went on a warpath and eventually took vastly more land than the UN allocated. Then decades later, Arab nations attacked Israel, and Israel defended herself - as they have a right to - but then took even MORE land and kept it. They are now practicing ILLEGAL settler colonialism across the West Bank - and are just used to it.

3. ISRAEL TO MOVE OUT OF ALL THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORY THEY OCCUPY

4. INTERNATIONALLY PATROLLED DMZ ZONES
Let the UN create a few fenced off and patrolled DMZ zones maybe 200 meters wide, which should be wide enough for railways and highways across Israel to link Gaza and the West Bank. These should be fenced off so that Palestinians and Israelis on the move cannot even see each other. Israel can have a series of tunnels to move up and down Israel. With the right engineering and landscape architecture, each need not even see the other.


PALESTINIAN COMPROMISES

1. Disarm Hamas.

2. Creating a legitimate Palestinian Authority that acknowledges the right of Israel to exist.

3. Give up the "right of return".
This is a challenge to older Palestinians that might still maintain ideas of going home to an area that has been Israel's for nearly 6 decades. There would need to be a Palestinian led education campaign about the benefits of peace targeting the younger generations. They don't remember these previous homes of their grandparents - and hopefully in this way the new Palestinian state will "only" require Gaza and the West Bank.

GOOD LUCK getting any of this to happen given how totally the hard-liners in each camp view the others as less than human!

Also - don't let western bias against militant Islam blind you to the deadly and disgusting nature of militant Zionism! The war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza are disgusting at a gut level. 18,000 children killed in the latest war! How is that "Just War"? How is that a "Proportionate Response?"

Until all of these are achieved - he's just whacked a band aid down and is calling it a heart transplant!

 

[Benaiah468]

Israel have ignored the United Nations since the start of this thing 2. KICK 500,000 ILLEGAL ISRAELI SETTERS OUT OF THE WEST BANK
They are now practicing ILLEGAL settler colonialism across the West Bank - and are just used to it.

Are the Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria really 'illegal'?

Contrary to a widespread prejudice, the ‘occupation’ is a consequence of the war against Israel and not its cause.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied in 1967 because the resolution uses the phrase "from territories occupied," not "from all territories". This omission was deliberate, allowing for negotiations to establish "secure and recognized boundaries" in a peace agreement, which could differ from the pre-war lines. The resolution has been interpreted to mean that some land would be returned in exchange for peace, but not necessarily all of it.

Whatever the details of a future peace agreement may be, the fact remains that an armistice line between Israel and the "West Bank" does not exist.

This was already the case in 1949, when Israel's enemies did not yet have tens of thousands of rockets at their disposal, as terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and it is even more true today, when a rocket fired from the "West Bank" can reach Netanya, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem within seconds.

The risk of making Yasser Arafat and the PLO rulers over the "Palestinians" cost Israel dearly. Instead of a future state with all the necessary structures, a terrorist infrastructure was established, whose deadly consequences have affected Israeli society.

As the current "Palestinian" leadership has made clear on numerous occasions, a negotiated peace is just as impossible as a unilateral Israeli withdrawal behind an armistice line of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Understanding this dilemma is essential if we are to move beyond simplistic discussions about Israel's options for action.

In the years following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, thousands of rockets were fired at the Israeli heartland. Four times (in 2008/2009, 2012, 2014 and 2021), Israel was forced to undertake major military operations to put an end to the rocket terror, at least temporarily.

The experiences in the years since then have ensured that a similar approach in the "West Bank" is virtually impossible. It is only thanks to the Israeli presence and cooperation with Jordan that the "West Bank" has not become a similar rocket stronghold to southern Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 and the Gaza Strip after 2005.

A simple withdrawal from the "West Bank" is not possible without massively endangering Israel's security and, as a further consequence, putting countless human lives at risk if extensive military operations become necessary in the foreseeable future to protect Israeli citizens from terrorist attacks from the "West Bank".

But what about the ‘secure borders’ that were also mentioned in the resolution as a prerequisite for peace? What are the conditions that would ensure that the Jewish state is not exposed to the dangers that existed with the ‘pre-1967 borders’ and can defend itself without being dependent on the goodwill of third parties?

The core of Israel's considerations regarding defensible borders can be summarised as follows: They must ‘provide Israel with the minimum strategic depth and lines of defence that are topographically of strategic importance’. This means it must retain control of the Jordan Valley and control the airspace over the "West Bank" and strategically important mountain ranges.

Anyone who is not prepared to accept them cannot be serious about supporting the peace process, which cannot succeed unless it is based on the creation of secure and defensible borders for Israel.

Jews were only a third of the people living in the British Mandate at the time - and yet the UN gave them 55% of the land. When this was announced the Arabs protested and some violence broke out - and Israel went on a warpath and eventually took vastly more land than the UN allocated.

Although Jews made up only around 31% of the population in the British Mandate of Palestine, the 1947 UN partition plan allocated 55% of the land to the Jewish state because the division of land was based not only on population figures, but also on settlement areas, economic feasibility and geographical conditions.

Although the Jewish population was in the minority, it owned a larger share of fertile land, especially in the coastal plains. The proposed partition took into account the existing contiguous Jewish settlement areas and allocated most of the coastal region and the Negev desert to the Jewish state.

In order to ensure a functioning state, it was necessary to take into account not only the distribution of the population, but also strategic and economic aspects. The Jewish state was given territories that were considered advantageous for economic development.

The plan was not designed to create a homogeneous population in the respective states. Instead, significant minorities were to live in both proposed states. The Jewish state would have been founded with an Arab population of about 45%.

The "Palestinians" responded to the resolution by attacking Jewish settlements instead of first trying to negotiate a better deal peacefully. They would have been better advised to work within the plan to create something more reasonable instead of completely negating and attacking it.

 

[Benaiah468]

After US President Donald Trump reiterated that the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas must hold at all costs, concern is growing in the Knesset that the US could push Israel to make far-reaching concessions.

Steve Witkoff is considered a key figure in discussions about the ‘future of Gaza’. Israeli MP Amit Halevi accuses Trump confidant of jeopardising Israel's security.

Halevi accused Witkoff and his team of pushing Israel towards a course that would ultimately lead to chaos and terror. He was referring to the American plan, according to which a ‘local administration’ with "Palestinian" participation would gradually assume responsibility in Gaza, a concept that is seen in Jerusalem as a step towards a "Palestinian" state.

Instead, Halevi demands that Israel take complete control of the Gaza Strip, militarily, administratively and in terms of security policy, once the current operation is over. Only in this way can Hamas or a successor organisation be prevented from gaining a foothold again.

Witkoff's visit to Israel took place just one day after a serious attack by Hamas in which two Israeli soldiers were killed. Nevertheless, Washington is calling for restraint and adherence to the ceasefire. Many Israelis feel that this pressure is unreasonable. They want to force Israel to take responsibility, but without giving it the means to defend itself.

For Halevi and many in his party, one thing is clear: any form of "Palestinian" self-government in the Gaza Strip would not mean peace, but a new front, this time under international auspices.

 

[eclipsenow]

Are the Jewish settlements in Judea/Samaria really 'illegal'?

Contrary to a widespread prejudice, the ‘occupation’ is a consequence of the war against Israel and not its cause.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied in 1967 because the resolution uses the phrase "from territories occupied," not "from all territories". This omission was deliberate, allowing for negotiations to establish "secure and recognized boundaries" in a peace agreement, which could differ from the pre-war lines. The resolution has been interpreted to mean that some land would be returned in exchange for peace, but not necessarily all of it.

Semantic gibberish.

The 2 state solution is hard enough assuming a few DMZ transit corridors across Israel. Let alone Israel's arrogance in assuming it can turn the West Bank into a Swiss Cheese state - demanding that the Palestinians be GRATEFUL that Israel left them the little holes!

Whatever the details of a future peace agreement may be, the fact remains that an armistice line between Israel and the "West Bank" does not exist.

Can you please unpack this - as I'm not sure I agree with how you're using armistice line?

This was already the case in 1949, when Israel's enemies did not yet have tens of thousands of rockets at their disposal, as terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and it is even more true today, when a rocket fired from the "West Bank" can reach Netanya, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem within seconds.

Oh - I see. Circular reasoning based on prejudice.
1. The Palestinians are awful people that will never grant Israel's right to exist.
2. They will always attack Israel.
3. So Israel are justified in continuing illegal setter-colonialism across the West Bank to treat the Palestinian civilians as the criminals we all know they are!

When you treat people like this, they'll be incited to more rebellion and some of them will get pushed too far - and do awful things.
It's sociology 101.

Your attitude guarantees there will never be peace.

As the current "Palestinian" leadership

Your "comments" are so full of "attitude" that I'm done reading this post "right here". I can see the general vibe. If you want to reply to the points already raised above, I'm all ears.

 

[Benaiah468]

Semantic gibberish.

The 2 state solution is hard enough assuming a few DMZ transit corridors across Israel. Let alone Israel's arrogance in assuming it can turn the West Bank into a Swiss Cheese state - demanding that the Palestinians be GRATEFUL that Israel left them the little holes!

The vague wording was a deliberate compromise in order to enable the resolution 242 to be adopted unanimously. Israel argued that the resolution did not require a complete withdrawal, while the Arab states interpreted it differently. The overarching goal was to lay the foundations for lasting peace, to be achieved through negotiations and agreements between the parties involved.

Some mistakenly assume that Security Council Resolution 242 demands Israel's complete withdrawal from the territory it conquered in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Some may have ulterior motives to deprive Israel of any legal rights in the disputed territories. In any case, they use this misrepresentation to conclude that settlement activity is illegal because it perpetuates an “illegal” Israeli occupation.

Both the assumption and the conclusion are seriously flawed.

Israel has already withdrawn from most of the land it conquered and from almost all areas where it maintains communities that are essential for secure and recognized borders. The exact location of Israeli settlements has been determined over the past 30 years by the Israeli Ministry of Defense, not by the settlers themselves; they were built to strengthen Israel's presence in those few areas from which it cannot afford to withdraw, militarily speaking.

In 1995, Israel AND the PLO agreed to divide the "West Bank" into three zones, A, B and C, as part of an interim agreement. Presently, the PA exercises full control in parts of the "West Bank" (Area A), has civil administrative authority in Area B and shares security responsibility (military and police authority) with Israel, while Area C is completely controlled by Israel.

A two-state solution would theoretically only be possible if Hamas were completely dissolved and the "Palestinians" committed themselves to democracy and fully recognized Israel. And, of course, renounced violence. You are right when you say that the "Palestinians" should give up their ‘right of return’, because the two-state solution has long been in place: the eastern part of "Palestine" is the Arab state (Jordan), while the Jewish part is west of the Jordan River (The fences and tunnels you are demanding would therefore be superfluous. You should remain realistic: Who would really want to live with that? Spatial separation of Jews and "Palestinian" Arabs YES, but NOT LIKE THIS!).

In 2005, the 17 jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip were evacuated within just two weeks, despite fierce resistance from their inhabitants. Israel's unilateral withdrawal was a mistake with disastrous consequences. The settlers were not the reason why there could be no peace with the "Palestinians". As far as the "West Bank" is concerned, Israel will not repeat the cardinal mistake it made in 2005. In other words, there will be no more terrorist states on Israel's borders, no Jewish-free, Sharia-led theocracies, neither in Gaza nor in the "West Bank". The Arab neighbours and the "Palestinians" themselves played a significant role in causing the problem. Israel should completely eliminate the threat and repopulate the Gaza Strip and Judea/Samaria with a Jewish movement. Those Arabs who wish to be integrated and meet the necessary requirements will be integrated; those who do not will emigrate and settle in one of the neighbouring Arab countries.

1. The Palestinians are awful people that will never grant Israel's right to exist.
2. They will always attack Israel.
3. So Israel are justified in continuing illegal setter-colonialism across the West Bank to treat the Palestinian civilians as the criminals we all know they are!

Your attitude guarantees there will never be peace.

1. 67 per cent of "Palestinians" consider Hamas' attack on Israel on Oct 7 to be ‘the right decision’. Just as many expect Hamas to win the war. This was the result of a survey conducted by the "Palestinian" Centre for Policy and Opinion Research last year. How can peace be achieved in a two-state solution under these circumstances?

2. How could it be otherwise?

Even children are systematically taught to hate Israel, to praise anti-Israeli violence and to fight relentlessly against the Jewish state. "Palestinian" schoolbooks deny any historical connection between Jews and the disputed land. Jerusalem, which was the capital of a Jewish kingdom thousands of years ago, is presented as an Arab city built by Arab ancestors thousands of years ago. There is literally nothing to be found in "Palestinian" schoolbooks about the Holocaust. The "Palestinians" are unprepared to accept a Jewish State on any terms. Fatah, the PLO and Hamas systematically promote hatred of Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel. The original PLO Charter, adopted in 1968, denied Israel's right to exist. An official, amended version was never published. The Hamas Charter calls for the establishment of an Islamic state in place of Israel, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

Since 1989, Hamas has repeatedly attacked Israel with acts of terrorism, including murders, suicide bombings and Qassam rocket attacks. Since 2005, Hamas and other terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip have fired over 20,000 rockets and mortar shells at Israel, carried out more than a hundred suicide bombings, and dug dozens of terror tunnels into Israeli communities.

Because the Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. Ex 17:16b

The verse makes it clear: Enmity toward Israel is ultimately an expression of a deeper enmity toward G-d Himself. It is not a “normal” ethnic conflict, but part of humanity's greatest spiritual struggle.

G-d chose the people of Israel to bring forth the Messiah through their history. Jesus Christ was born a Jew in Bethlehem, part of the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, not by chance, but as the fulfillment of ancient prophetic promises.

This fact explains why Israel has repeatedly been the target of hatred and attempts at destruction. For whoever attacks Israel ultimately opposes G-d's plan of salvation, in which this people plays a central role.

Jerusalem will become a thorn in the side of all nations. However, the history of Israel will not end in suffering and oppression. Ultimately there will be peace in the Middle East. Israel is getting closer to true peace every day. It is Jesus the Messiah who will usher in an era of universal peace on earth in the future, as prophesied.

According to Zechariah 9:5-8, Gaza ultimately belongs to the G-d of Israel. The city and its people are invited to become part of His people, regardless of their origin. The "Palestinians" need to make peace with Him.

#389

 

[Benaiah468]

Israel... are now practicing ILLEGAL settler colonialism across the West Bank - and are just used to it.

A law is being invoked against Israeli settlements that is not applied anywhere else in the world.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 deals with the prohibited expulsion and deportation of civilians from occupied territories. These international humanitarian instruments, forged from the ashes of the Holocaust to prevent future genocidal brutality and oppression, were never invoked for 50 years, until homes were built in Jerusalem in 1998.

Were such construction measures, any construction of settlements, a violation of the Geneva Convention?

No.

The relevant paragraph, Article 49, prohibits the ‘occupying power’ from transferring population into the ‘occupied territories’. Apart from the fact that the territories are not occupied but disputed, Morris Abrams, US Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, pointed out that the paragraph refers only to the forcible transfer of large sections of the population. In contrast, the settlements involve the voluntary relocation of civilians. The US State Department does not consider Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to be applicable to settlement activities in the "West Bank" and Gaza Strip. For this reason, the official US position over the years has never been that the settlements are illegal, even though various administrations have criticised them for political reasons. (Only the Carter administration briefly considered the settlements to be illegal; this position was rejected by the Reagan administration).

One cannot speak of international law if this law is only applied to one country in the world. A comparison between Israel and similar situations (East Timor, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, Lebanon, Cambodia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Crimea) clearly shows how hollow the invocation of international law is when condemning Israeli settlements. When rules and standards are not applied consistently to different cases, but remain limited to a single case, it is not law. The fact that those who single out Israel and denounce Israeli settlements exclusively invoke international law is not an expression of their efforts to comply with international law, but rather a perversion of it.

 

[Benaiah468]

While the world talks about reconstruction, Hamas is already preparing its political comeback.

Officially, there is a ceasefire. Unofficially, Hamas is preparing to remain in control in the ‘post-war order’ of the Gaza Strip.

The agreement to end the war between Israel and Hamas stipulated that half of the ministerial posts would be filled by the PA and the other half by ‘independent experts’. However, Hamas has undermined this requirement: half of the candidates it nominated are long-standing sympathisers of the movement, people who ‘share its ideology and remain loyal to it’.

Arab mediators, led by Egypt, were informed of these appointments. Diplomats were presented with a list of future ‘ministers’ that included several names belonging to Hamas' inner circle or who had been active in its milieu in the past.

This threatens what Israel has feared for months: that Hamas will continue its political influence under the label of a technocratic government without formally remaining in power, a strategy it has already successfully tested after previous conflicts.

Just hours before this revelation came to light, Israel had asked the US not to start rebuilding Gaza for the time being, as long as it remains unclear whether Hamas is actually prepared to surrender its weapons.

Israel's demand is clear: no funds, no aid supplies, no infrastructure projects until Hamas's tunnel network has been completely shut down and its military structures dismantled. But this seems to be precisely what Hamas is trying to circumvent.

A senior official of the organisation stated last week that Hamas could not commit to disarming. In doing so, it is undermining not only the spirit of the ceasefire, but also any international confidence in the announced reconstruction process.

What Hamas is selling as a ‘technocratic government’ is in reality a political smokescreen. Behind the term lies the goal of deceiving the international community while maintaining its power structures in Gaza. Many of the supposed ‘civilian experts’ have been part of the administrative apparatus under Hamas for years, from the Ministry of the Interior to the building inspectorate that coordinated the tunnel projects.

What is particularly controversial is that the Arab mediators, including Egypt, Qatar and Jordan, are said to have been informed about the Hamas list. Officially, they emphasise that they want to promote a ‘comprehensive "Palestinian" solution’. Unofficially, however, according to analysts in Jerusalem, it is more convenient to involve Hamas politically than to fight it militarily.

The calculation is clear: a Hamas that remains a political player in the system is easier to control, but also easier to legitimise.

Recent developments show that there can be no talk of a real ‘day after’ in Gaza. As long as Hamas retains its power over institutions, the media and the streets, any reconstruction will remain a facade. And as long as Arab mediators tacitly play along with this game, the region faces the next deception.

Hamas may be militarily weakened, but politically it has long since returned to operating from the shadows. And anyone who now helps with reconstruction without setting clear conditions risks turning today's ceasefire into tomorrow's war.

 

[eclipsenow]

Contrary to a widespread prejudice, the ‘occupation’ is a consequence of the war against Israel and not its cause.

First - I was recently accused of a "Gish Gallop" in another thread for the length of ONE post on a complicated matter. But buddy - you take the cake. 3 extremely long posts!? Try to reply in less than 300 words. I'm serious. Write in Word which has a counter or something.

This post might be long - but it's mainly evidence!

I understand that Israel wants to pretend it has a right to CONTINUE the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza because they were attacked over HALF A CENTURY ago, but as the 57th anniversary of the UN resolution on the 1967 war is coming up next month on 22 November, and you have completely misrepresented that resolution - and indeed - the UN's core Charter!

UN Security Council Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw from all territories occupied in 1967

Yes it does!

242 starts: "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,​

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,...​

...2. Affirms further the necessity​

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;​

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;​

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;"​

Territorial inviolability. Political independence! That means get out of there, and leave them alone!
It means STOP building walls across their territory, and harassing their people with constant stop and search routines, and requiring them to go through an hour of 'security checks' just to drive to their work 2 km away!

As an American might say, "Get off my lawn!"​

​

Your proposition goes against the UN CHARTER ITSELF - the very DNA of the organisation!​

Article 2:​

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.​

​

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.​

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.​

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.​

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action... (continues)​

   

   UN Charter | United Nations

   The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter. Visit...

   www.un.org

That means not only is Israel breaking international law by occupying GAZA - it probably means the world should put Israel under economic sanctions until Israel can get their act together! We put sanctions on South Africa for apartheid. We should do the same to Israel - and STOP SELLING HER MILITARY KIT IMMEDIATELY!

The risk of making Yasser Arafat and the PLO rulers over the "Palestinians" cost Israel dearly. Instead of a future state with all the necessary structures, a terrorist infrastructure was established, whose deadly consequences have affected Israeli society.

Persecuting Palestinians via apartheid in Israel and occupation in the world's largest open-air jails, Gaza and the West Bank, is guaranteed to continue creating the resentment that makes militant Muslims act in certain deplorable ways. Sure - the French resistance did not attack innocent women and children and civilian man at a music festival. But their occupiers were no less criminal in their actions and intent under international law!

And while we're speaking of killing children - how does Israel live with the knowledge that militant Zionism killed over 18,000 children in Gaza?
How is that "Just war?"

Occupation and persecution creates enemies. It's Psychology and Sociology 101.

As the current "Palestinian" leadership has made clear on numerous occasions, a negotiated peace is just as impossible

Australia has recognised Palestine as a state.
But only on the provision that a new, more legitimate Palestinian authority is created.

In the years following Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, thousands of rockets were fired at the Israeli heartland. Four times (in 2008/2009, 2012, 2014 and 2021), Israel was forced to undertake major military operations to put an end to the rocket terror, at least temporarily.

And what was it like to live in Occupied Gaza - the world's second largest open air jail? (Second only to the West Bank!) How reliable was their fresh water, their power, their trade of goods and services with the outside world?

But it's all THEIR fault!
Nice.

The experiences in the years since then have ensured that a similar approach in the "West Bank" is virtually impossible. It is only thanks to the Israeli presence and cooperation with Jordan that the "West Bank" has not become a similar rocket stronghold to southern Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 and the Gaza Strip after 2005.

How about you TRY it?

You've been occupying that land illegally for 57 years! How about creating goodwill by getting out of there and giving them a chance?

Instead Israel continues the illegal settler-colonialism. Over half a million Jews illegally settling enemy land.

Yeah - it's ALL about self-defence!

 

[eclipsenow]

The exact location of Israeli settlements has been determined over the past 30 years by the Israeli Ministry of Defense,

I don't care! Territorial integrity! Political independence!

In your anti-Palestinian zeal you are twisting some facts.

Israel is guilty of apartheid and illegally occupying foreign lands.

The UN decided the matter in 1948, some Arabs committed some acts of violent protest - and then Israel took EVEN MORE land and decided they would run the show ever since.

In THIS instance - Militant Zionism seems numerically far more deadly than Militant Islam. Israel stinks of war crimes. EG: They say they only target military locations, but then use excessive bombs with a 700 m kill zone that are then marketed on the international weapons scene as 'battle tested'. Israel have a history of not only marketing weapons to apartheid South Africa and Pinochet's Chile - but extending training in how to get away with the PR campaigns to justify those regimes!
(4 episodes by Australian Jewish reporter: The Palestine Laboratory Podcast )

In 1995, Israel AND the PLO agreed to divide the "West Bank" into three zones, A, B and C, as part of an interim agreement.

Interim aka temporary. Towards the goal of 242! The goal of the UN Charter itself!

(The fences and tunnels you are demanding would therefore be superfluous. You should remain realistic: Who would really want to live with that? Spatial separation of Jews and "Palestinian" Arabs YES, but NOT LIKE THIS!).

Sorry - I'm a bit exhausted and busy today. Do you have a map? I can't quite visualise what you're talking about.

Also - many modern cities have interstate highways cutting through them in a manner that is quite navigable. Israel is great at desert agriculture and gardens and drip-feed irrigation tech. With a little landscaping, I'm quite sure Israel could clad the DMZ walls in so many trees etc they would not even know it was there.

In 2005, the 17 jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip were evacuated within just two weeks, despite fierce resistance from their inhabitants. Israel's unilateral withdrawal was a mistake with disastrous consequences. The settlers were not the reason why there could be no peace with the "Palestinians". As far as the "West Bank" is concerned, Israel will not repeat the cardinal mistake it made in 2005. In other words, there will be no more terrorist states on Israel's borders...

Oh - so you admit Israel IS dictating the terms to the UN now? OK - as long as you're open about it. Just kindly retract your reinterpretation of 242 and the very PURPOSE of the UN above.

, no Jewish-free, Sharia-led theocracies, neither in Gaza nor in the "West Bank".

And... there it is. It WAS a certain way, therefore will ALWAYS BE a certain way. Because it's "Them".

Try re-reading what the UK, France, Canada, and Australia actually proposed about Palestinian leadership as they recognised a Palestinian state.

Israel should completely eliminate the threat and repopulate the Gaza Strip and Judea/Samaria with a Jewish movement.

And now you're saying the quiet bits out loud.

Ethnic cleansing.

Gee - really sticking with 242 and the UN Charter hey?

Remind us why so many Jews fled Europe and Russia in the 1930's and 1940's?

Oh - and somewhere in your million-word thesis above - you claimed Palestinian authorities had NEVER granted Israel's right to exist?
That's Israeli propaganda. You've been had. Try reading outside your current echo-chamber. You'll have a greater chance of encountering reality.

In November 1988, the Palestinian parliament-in-exile, the Palestine National Council (PNC), adopted at its Algiers meeting a series of bold and historic resolutions in which the Palestinians indicated for the first time and in a formal manner their acceptance of the principle of partition of the historic land of Palestine. At the same time they accepted, based on the principle of mutual recognition, Israel's right to exist in part of what they consider their own patrimony, renounced the use of political violence, and declared the establishment of their state in exile to be eventually concretized in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Palestinians on the Peace Process

www.palestine-studies.org

​

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Letters of Mutual Recognition were exchanged between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization on 9 September 1993. In their correspondence, Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian president Yasser Arafat agreed to begin cooperating towards a peaceful solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist in peace, renounced Palestinian militancy and terrorism, and accepted UNSC Resolution 242 and UNSC Resolution 338. Israel recognized the PLO as a legitimate authority representing the Palestinian people and agreed to commence comprehensive negotiations for the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. These initial agreements between Rabin and Arafat laid the groundwork for the Oslo I Accord on 13 September 1993, effectively serving as its preamble.

Israel–Palestine Liberation Organization letters of recognition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The PLO accepted Israel's right to exist. But Israel remains adamant that they will not return the favour.

I can't read any more of your ranting today.

IF you reply, try to stick to the 300 word limit - and ONE post only.

Basically - this is what I hope happens within Israel one day.

(Comic - to take the edge off.)