Its interesting how you talk about “17 year-old’s with bombs or AK 47s” when the first report you cited gives examples like this:
Bolding mine. In the report none of the children that were killed had bombs or AK 47s. One threw stones with a slingshot. One allegedly tried to sabotage the border fence. One said some words. Another got wrapped in a flag at his funeral.
These were all still children. The 15 year-old wrapped in a Hamas flag? He was a child. And being wrapped in flag after he is dead isn’t a crime.
The other report you cited was from 2001. And the BBC report condemned both Israel AND Hamas. Hamas were on the list (and deservedly so) for " for killing, injuring and abducting children", not for using child soldiers. And Israel were on the list because “incidents were caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas by Israeli armed and security forces.”
The reality is that we know the names, the ages, the locations and when they died of the more than 20,000 children killed by the IDF in Gaza. If you want to argue that some of them might have been armed with AK 47s or bombs at the time then tell us who they were.
Here are their names.
It includes nearly 1000 babies who died under the age of one. 450 of those were born during this conflict.
For that matter, I can directly demonstrate the existence of an anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia these days.
Here’s how the article on “Zionism” started in September 2023;
Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to espouse support for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Following the establishment of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports “the development and protection of the State of Israel”.
Zionism initially emerged in Central and Eastern Europe as a national revival movement in the late 19th century, both in reaction to newer waves of antisemitism and as a response to Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment.Soon after this, most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired homeland in Palestine, then an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire. This process was seen by the Zionist Movement as an “ingathering of exiles” (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland.
And here’s how it reads now;
Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in late 19th-century Europe; it primarily seeks to establish and support a Jewish homeland through the colonization of Palestine, which roughly corresponds to the Land of Israel in Judaism—itself central to Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.
Zionism initially emerged in Central and Eastern Europe as a secular nationalist movement in the late 19th century, in reaction to newer waves of antisemitism and in response to the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment. The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews’ historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.
See the difference in editorial slant? It’s been altered to deliberately depicted Zionism, Israel, and Judaism in general in a negative light.
“Conquer the land”? In the Palestinians’ case, we’re talking about land that they lived on until very recently until Israel took it away from them. Including grandparents’ houses and farms etc. that they still have the keys to, but now can’t access because Israelis have been assigned ownership of them by Israel (with no compensation).
Denying that Israel’s oppression and dispossession of Palestinians for its own territorial-expansionist purposes is a huge part of this conflict is just plain delusional. It’s a propaganda strategy crafted and promoted not for better understanding of the Israel-Palestine situation, but for terminating thought about the Israel-Palestine situation, and replacing actual thought with the mindless conviction that all the problems are ultimately always and only the fault of the Palestinians.
Well, jeeze, when you put it like that, the Palestinians should keep launching war of annihilation after war of annihilation against the Zionist Entity until it is destroyed.
Also, does anyone know where I can get some rockets? I’m headed to Morocco, I’m gonna get back my grandfather’s store!
Wait, no, I’m not. Launching a Jihad against the illegitimate Moroccan Entity because they took everything my grandparents owned would be the height of stupidity.
Revanchist whining about oppression is precisely why this conflict didn’t end when the Arab states gave up their pan Arab ambitions. If the Palestinians gave up on getting back Tel Aviv and Haifa, there wouldn’t be settlements because they could do whatever they wanted to in their sovereign state of Palestine, including ethnically cleanse all the settlers.
So long as Palestinians consider the mere presence of Jews in Tel Aviv to be “oppressing their ancestral land”, there is no resolution to the conflict, because Jewish people in Tel Aviv aren’t going anywhere; Palestinians will launch war after war after war trying to take it all back. Whether it’s Hamas, the PLO, or any other leadership group.
The Palestinians in the West Bank have a better point, but you know what the solution to that is?
Accept that they aren’t getting Israel back
Sign a two state deal
Evict the settlers
Or, even better:
Accept that they aren’t getting Israel back
Sign a two state deal and make Israel evict the settlers as part of the agreement
But there is no possible avenue that doesn’t start with step 1, accept that they aren’t getting Israel proper back.
Also, just curious, if I’m a renter and my landlord sells the land I rent to someone else, for how many years is the person who bought the land “oppressing” me if they don’t choose to rent it to me afterwards? 100 years? 200?
Why do tenant farmers whose landlords sold the land during Ottoman time have any claim to the land whatsoever?
Not all Palestinians who were displaced before 48 were tenant farmers, but quite a few were, and quite a bit of the land under discussion was owned by absentee landlords under Ottoman rule, who legally sold that land. You don’t have an eternal right to the land you happen to be renting.
This doesn’t hold water with the ongoing brutalization in the WB. Even setting aside Gaza - Israeli actions in the WB demonstrate that, at present, peaceful Palestinians would have no potential partner for peace and human rights. This Israeli government clearly has no interest in peace and human rights.
This Israeli government is the result of the Israeli electorate losing faith in the Palestinian leadership ever seeking peace. This is based on past behavior, including the Intifadas that some are now calling to globalize.
I didn’t say that, did I? And that’s pretty rich considering your are responding to me responding to Kimstu arguing that everything the Palestinians do is because of “Israeli Oppression”.
Anyways, the way I see it, there are two ways forward. The Palestinians give up on their revanchist ambitions, and we eventually have peace; or they don’t, and something like October 7th happens again (although hopefully the IDF is better prepared next time and the loss of life is much more minimal); and then there’s another war, which you and Kimstu and others will continue to blame on “Israeli Oppression”, and then at the end of that war the Palestinians still won’t give up their ambitions, and we’ll go through this cycle a few more dozen times.
That’s not the future I want. I want a future where the international community puts appropriate pressure on both sides to accept a two state agreement, but that will never happen so long as the international community continues to pretend that only one side has agency here.
Palestinians could be perfect forever and nothing would change unless Israel stops breaking the law, committing atrocities, and brutalizing civilians in the WB, at a bare minimum. There are plenty of things that are necessary but not sufficient for actual long term peace. Israel owns many but not all of those things.
And at present, Israel is the much, much more powerful, and much, much wealthier party. That means more responsibility to do the right thing. They don’t own all the problems, or all the responsibility, but they own a big, big part of both. IMO, at present, they’re abrogating this responsibility entirely.
“You are bigger and wealthier therefore you must unilaterally make peace with people who are actively trying to destroy you” is not a convincing argument. Like, at all.
Especially when we started off smaller, poorer, and weaker and only became bigger and stronger by winning repeated wars of annihilation waged against us.
Peace is a two way process, even if one side is “bigger and stronger” than the other. This analysis where everything is viewed through the lens of oppression and power dynamics is completely devoid of value. It’s how you get to thoughts like “racism is prejudice plus power so minorities cannot be racist against white people”.
Of course peace is a two-way process. Right now, Israel is failing to do things – like cease the brutalization of civilians in the WB – that are entirely within their power, and pose zero threat to Israeli security, that are necessary but not sufficient for peace. So yes, it’s entirely reasonable to view present-day Israel as a barrier to peace. An Israel serious about peace would, at the very least, stop brutalizing and stealing from civilians in the WB.
Once again, necessary but not sufficient. This would not make peace on its own. Israel can’t make peace on its own… and neither can Palestinians.
Right now, Palestine is failing to do things - like cease the pay-for-slay Martyr Fund payments they make to terrorists in both Gaza and the West Bank - that are entirely within their power, and pose zero threat to Palestinian security, that are necessary but not sufficient for peace. So yes, it’s entirely reasonable to view present-day Palestine as a barrier to peace. A Palestine serious about peace would, at the very least, stop paying for the murder of Israeli civilians.
If you can’t admit “yes, brutalizing civilians in the WB is a barrier to peace, Israel should stop it, and there’s no chance of peace without this (among many other things from both sides)”, then we’re on such different planets that we can stop now.
I’ve said that I oppose the settlements for literally years now. I don’t know what concession you think you’re pulling out of me by making me say the same thing I’ve said since long before October 7, but there you go.
I think that most of the should be removed and their inhabitants evicted. I also don’t think Israel should do this unilaterally, and I completely reject the premise that Israel has a responsibility to do so unilaterally just because they’re the bigger and stronger party.