Israel-Hamas Thread II

2 'Squad' Members Vote to Allow Oct. 7 Attackers Into US​

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 422-2 on Wednesday to deny entry into the United States to non-U.S. citizen members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad who attacked Israel on Oct. 7.

Valletta said:

2 'Squad' Members Vote to Allow Oct. 7 Attackers Into US​

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 422-2 on Wednesday to deny entry into the United States to non-U.S. citizen members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad who attacked Israel on Oct. 7.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rashida-tlaib-cori-bush-vote/2024/02/01/id/1151826/

Click to expand...

That's not what they say they voted for. They say they voted against the bill because the attackers are already forbidden from entering.

Nithavela said:

That's not what they say they voted for. They say they voted against the bill because the attackers are already forbidden from entering.

Click to expand...

The article also said:

In a November resolution affirming Israel's right to exist, Tlaib voted "present," while Bush did not vote.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rashida-tlaib-cori-bush-vote/2024/02/01/id/1151826/

Valletta said:

The article also said:

In a November resolution affirming Israel's right to exist, Tlaib voted "present," while Bush did not vote.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rashida-tlaib-cori-bush-vote/2024/02/01/id/1151826/

Click to expand...

I see that instead of acknowledging that you have misrepresented someone, you decide to attack them from a different angle. I've been watching some youtube videos lately that make this kind of behaviour pretty blatant to spot. If I were to look into this and point out the truth of why they voted like that, you'd just post another accusation, and in the end, you'd be the one posting all the accusations, and so you'd be the winner.

Nithavela said:

I see that instead of acknowledging that you have misrepresented someone, you decide to attack them from a different angle. I've been watching some youtube videos lately that make this kind of behaviour pretty blatant to spot. If I were to look into this and point out the truth of why they voted like that, you'd just post another accusation, and in the end, you'd be the one posting all the accusations, and so you'd be the winner.

Click to expand...

I posted an article and a quotation from the article. Please no personal accusations.

Valletta said:

I posted an article and a quotation from the article. Please no personal accusations.

Click to expand...

When you decide to post something, especially when you do so without comment, you make that content your own. Nobody forced you to post the article or do so in the way you did, so claiming no ownership of the content of your own posts is a really weak cop-out.

Nithavela said:

I see that instead of acknowledging that you have misrepresented someone, you decide to attack them from a different angle. I've been watching some youtube videos lately that make this kind of behaviour pretty blatant to spot. If I were to look into this and point out the truth of why they voted like that, you'd just post another accusation, and in the end, you'd be the one posting all the accusations, and so you'd be the winner.

Click to expand...

Please do......along with your citations of course. I'll be happy to take on this 'discussion'.

As the NY Post notes: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have both been designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State Department since October 1997, and as such, their members are already barred from entering the US.

This agrees with the statements made by Tlaib and Bush (also quoted by the NY Post) that the bill is redundant. Its only purpose was grandstanding.

civilwarbuff said:

Please do......along with your citations of course. I'll be happy to take on this 'discussion'.

Click to expand...

I'm not jumping through any hoops for you. Good luck with finding someone else.

Vanellus said:

Maybe Israel should build some gas chambers to deal with the "psychotic murderers" and their children of course, and film it for Israeli pay tv.

View attachment 342229

Click to expand...

Nah that is for Palestinians and other terrorists.

ralliann said:

Nah that is for Palestinians and other terrorists.

Click to expand...

I do object to the characterisation of all Palestinians as Terrorists. This is false. I have friends who are Palestinian Anglican Priests and they certainly do not deserve to be labelled terrorists.

Philip_B said:

I do object to the characterisation of all Palestinians as Terrorists. This is false. I have friends who are Palestinian Anglican Priests and they certainly do not deserve to be labelled terrorists.

Click to expand...

I did not say all Palestinians. But many Palestinians are indeed supporting terrorism and the extermination of Israeli's

ralliann said:

I did not say all Palestinians. But many Palestinians are indeed supporting terrorism and the extermination of Israeli's

Click to expand...

Yes! you did. That is the only way to read your post intelligently. You have pluralised Palestinians - if you mean only those Palestinians who are terrorists you should have made that plain.

Had you said "Nah that is for Palestinian and other terrorists." or "Nah that is for Palestinian terrorists and other terrorists." I am not normally a grammar nazi however if you want to convey a given meaning, you should take to time to word it properly, or you will be misunderstood.

Philip_B said:

Yes! you did. That is the only way to read your post intelligently. You have pluralised Palestinians - if you mean only those Palestinians who are terrorists you should have made that plain.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did pluralise them. It is Palestinians doing Terrorist acts to Israel.

ralliann said:

Yes, I did pluralise them. It is Palestinians doing Terrorist acts to Israel.

Click to expand...

Than language you are using is English. Not all Palestinians are Terrorists, though some are. so your sentence structure was incorrect because the descriptor terrorist does not apply to all Palestinians. All you have done is rather than say 'oops' you choose to justify your misstatement.

Philip_B said:

Than language you are using is English. Not all Palestinians are Terrorists, though some are. so your sentence structure was incorrect because the descriptor terrorist does not apply to all Palestinians. All you have done is rather than say 'oops' you choose to justify your misstatement.

Click to expand...

I'm not worried about my sentence structure. People bent on genocide is foremost here. As well as those which support them.

ralliann said:

I'm not worried about my sentence structure. People bent on genocide is foremost here. As well as those which support them.

Click to expand...

I wonder what that says. Firstly I assume it means that you don't care about the information being understood by those who read what you write, it seems that it is just some sort of therapy for you to express yourself. This is the kind of English that got the 45th President of the United States into a world of pain. If you don't care about the people reading what you write, perhaps you shouldn't write it.

Your second sentence here is an example. You have used 'people' - a generic plural and the singular form of the verb to be, 'is'. I have no idea what 'foremost here' means of refers to.

The purpose of language is to convey meaning from one person to another. So far I have gleaned from you that you are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine, and rather than debate, discuss, or engage in conversation, you just keep talking whilst not listening.

International law updates.

Mexico, Chile ask International Criminal Court to investigate possible war crimes in Gaza

Indonesia to Argue That Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian Territory Violates International Law​

South Africa’s genocide case against Israel spotlights a global divide​

In this preliminary phase of the case, the court ordered Israel to do more to prevent the killing and harm of Palestinians in Gaza.

The ICJ’s rulings are legally binding, but require U.N. Security Council resolutions for there to be genuine mechanisms, like sanctions, to implement them — something that’s unlikely in this context given the United States’ long-standing practice of shielding Israel from international censure. But the fact that Israel has participated vigorously in the proceedings may mean it could find it harder to shrug off a ruling it does not like.

South Africa is not alone. Lining up behind it is a cast of countries from the so-called Global South — from Brazil to Turkey, Colombia to Bangladesh. Countries like Chile and Mexico have also referred alleged Israeli crimes for investigation by the International Criminal Court. According to a tally by Sarang Shidore and Dan Ford of the Quincy Institute, governments that represent some 60 percent of the population of “Global South” countries are now either leading or backing international legal action against Israel.

Israeli agents disguised as doctors, patients kill 3 at West Bank hospital [Ibn Sina]​

The Israel Defense Forces said the operation targeted militants who were “hiding” in the hospital. In a statement, the IDF said Mohammed Jalamneh, a Hamas fighter, and brothers Mohamed and Basil Ghazawi were “neutralized.”

Hamas confirmed that Jalamneh was a member of the group. Another militant group, Islamic Jihad, said Mohamed and Basil Ghazawi were members and that Basil had been receiving treatment at the hospital.

Ibn Sina spokesman Tawfiq al-Shobaki confirmed that Basil Ghazawi had been receiving treatment in the hospital since October. He said he was paralyzed.

There was no exchange of fire before the Israeli forces shot the men, Shobaki said.

[Even militants] "would have enjoyed immunity from attack if they were wounded or sick and refrained from any acts of hostilities against Israeli forces,” he said. “Targeting those who are hors de combat” — outside the fighting, because of injury or other reasons — or “otherwise protected is a violation of the law of armed conflict.”

Did Israel’s dramatic raid on a West Bank hospital violate the rules of war?​

Israeli agents disguised as medical staff and patients pulled out rifles, subdued hospital workers and headed for Room 376.

The agents shot and killed the patient there — he had been wounded months earlier in an Israeli airstrike — as well as his brother and a friend.

Legal experts said it’s likely that the hospital attack violated international laws governing conduct during war, including one that prohibits combatants from posing as doctors or other civilians, and another that bars the killing of adversaries who have been wounded.

The commandos dressed as doctors, nurses and patients. One was disguised as a woman in a headscarf and holding a bundle meant to look like a baby. Another sat in a wheelchair. When they reached the third floor, they whipped out assault rifles from under their clothes, according to surveillance video. Hospital staff said that there was no exchange of fire, and that the three men in Room 376 were shot in the head with silenced pistols.

Dr. Tawfiq Shobaki, a spokesman for the hospital, said the staff had been treating 18-year-old Basel Ghazawi since October, when an airstrike by Israel caused a spinal injury that left his lower body paralyzed.

The two other slain men were Ghazawi’s 23-year-old brother, Mohammed, and a friend, 27-year-old Mohammed Jalamneh. Israel said Jalamneh was planning an imminent attack purportedly inspired by Hamas’ Oct. 7 onslaught.

Nithavela said:

I'm not jumping through any hoops for you. Good luck with finding someone else.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the expected reply.

Excerpt:
The news that 31 hostages have died first emerged from a confidential internal Israeli review leaked to the New York Times. The fate of a further 20 people is also in question amid unconfirmed intelligence that they may also have died during their captivity, the report said.

The figure of 31 was later confirmed by the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, which represents families of the captives. “According to the official data we have, there are 31 victims,” it said in a statement.

The disclosure that so many of the remaining hostages are dead – a higher number than previously disclosed – seems certain to intensify scrutiny of the Netanyahu government’s handling of the crisis, which has provoked fury among many hostage families.

While about half of those taken captive during the attack were released last year after a hostages-for-ceasefire deal under which Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails were also freed, negotiations for a second deal have dragged on for weeks.

The circumstances of the hostages’ deaths remain unclear, with the Israeli authorities suggesting that many occurred on 7 October during Hamas’s incursion into southern Israel, in which 1,200 people were killed.