The impasse here is that you trust Israeli sources without independent confirmation, and I don’t. As for children, the IDF has killed and maimed thousands of kids under 10 (far, far more than Hamas, by the way). I’m fine with just focusing on them.
The Guardian? Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor? Those are Israeli sources now? Give me a break.
Over 20,000 Israeli Children Classified as Victims of Terror Since Oct. 7 Attack, Report Finds…
At least 23,212 Israeli children and teenagers were physically or mentally harmed because of the war in 2024, according to figures published on Tuesday by the Israel National Council for the Child.
That cite is somewhat biased-
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/haaretz/
Bias Rating: LEFT (-5.2)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.5)
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Note that they are also anti-occupation.
They’re reporting on statements and assertions from Israeli officials. Yes, I’m sure they accurately reported those statements. That doesn’t mean the statements are accurate.
As for the kids, I’m not sure what you’re trying to relate. Are you seriously challenging my assertion that the IDF has killed and maimed far, far more children than Hamas?
…what sources are you talking about? I haven’t read a single source make that claim. Not even the most biased of sources. They all use the universally accepted numbers: numbers that even the IDF and US authorities use.
Here is the list of names as of the start of 2024 from a source that you consider biased that counts children as under the age of eighteen.
It includes their names and ages. You can independently verify it if you wish. It is almost certainly an undercount.
As for the claim that some of them might be child soldiers, do you know whose burden it is to prove that? That’s yours. Why are you even bringing it up? Not even Israel is claiming they were targeting “child soldiers.” Unless you want to bring some evidence to the table, it’s utterly irrelevant to the discussion. We know the names and ages of everyone who has been killed. The burden is now on you to tell us which of them were child soldiers.
… The Committee to Protect Journalists is a reputable, legitimate, independent, nonprofit organization based in New York City that has a mission to “promote press freedom worldwide and defend the rights of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal, regardless of political ideology.” In 2013 the American Journalism Review called them “Journalism’s Red Cross.” They were founded in 1981.
There is no evidence to suggest they are “lying propagandists.”
This wasn’t actually proven. If it were: then the CPJ would have removed over 60% of the journalists from their database. They didn’t.
This is a conspiracy theory that has no factual basis.
…the fact that they keep listing terrorists as journalists must make it very difficult to fulfill that mission.
You mean, other than the fact that 60% of their list of “journalists” were actually terrorists?
I guess the ANC coincidentally found tens of millions of USD in their couch cushions just before dropping their farcical genocide accusation where they quoted soccer players and singers as evidence of official government policy.
…we don’t need to try hypotheticals.
A ceasefire is currently in place. Hamas is ready to step down, dissolve the government, and hand over to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a Palestinian-run committee founded under UN Security Council’s Resolution 2803 as a result of the US-backed 20-point peace plan.
That’s where we are at.
The problem is that Israel is stalling the process. They won’t let the NCAG into Gaza.
The problem is that since the ceasefire was signed, Israel has killed over a thousand Palestinians while Hamas has (allegedly; they deny it) killed two.
The problem is that Israel still maintain control over the borders to Gaza and are restricting the amount of food, aid and reconstruction materials getting in. That Israel is holding over 10,000 Palestinian detainees, many without charge, most of them in what humanitarian agencies call torture camps, many of them, like Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, almost certainly not guilty of anything.
The problem is Israel is currently committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and is credibly accused of committing genocide in Gaza. They have torture camps. They are occupying and ethnically cleansing Southern Lebanon. They targeted and killed Iranian scientists in their sleep and helped kill almost the entire Iranian leadership. They sabotaged the supply chain and blew up cellphones, a clear terrorist attack, that killed and wounded innocents. They sent in troops disguised as doctors and nurses to extrajudicially execute two patients at Ibn Sina Hospital.
The problem is that Israel is and has been committing grave and serious breaches of international law for decades, and the world, and the United States in particular, have been letting them do it.
We don’t get to move on until we address that elephant in the room. The occupation of Palestine is illegal under international law. If we don’t address that: then any peace deal, brokered now or in the future, is doomed to fail.
In the meantime, in Gaza Palestinians have been forced into living in less than 60% of their country now. Many are still displaced, living in tent camps that are sewage-infested squalor.
So when you frame the scenarios as this:
These aren’t equivalent scenarios. For starters, if Israel abides by the US-backed 20-point peace plan, then Hamas would not be the government. They are ready to step down. But secondly, look at how you’ve framed these scenarios. Where Isreal retaliates. This isn’t a “fairness POV.” If it were, then you would frame it around “Hamas fired rockets because Israel is holding thousands of innocent Palestinians hostage” or because “Israel is occupying large parts of Gaza.” You’ve set up a scenario where Israel breaks the ceasefire in retaliation. The reality on the ground is that Isreal is breaking the current ceasefire almost daily. And there is no retaliation.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestine, and under your scenario, I’m assuming the illegal occupation will continue. Is that correct? I’m not just talking about “halting new settlements.” That doesn’t end the occupation.
The way I see it: we won’t be the generation that brings peace to Palestine. I can’t see that happening. Israel is pursuing a dangerous expansionist strategy in the region. It doesn’t stop at Palestine. I think that we can’t view this in isolation. I think that the next generation, the ones that grew up watching the daily atrocities committed by the IDF in Gaza on their phones, are the only chance of making a difference. It’s the “Mamdani” revolution. People like him who share values with him need to step up and take power. What protects Israel are the existing power structures that turn a blind eye to its atrocities. So we elect people to tear down those power structures, to tear down the establishment. To show people there is a better way.
…they don’t list terrorists and journalists.
This isn’t correct. They reviewed the names on the list. They removed some of them. The remaining names in their determination aren’t terrorists.
For anyone interested, here is the legal case for genocide presented by the South African delegation to the International Court of Justice.
You can see for yourself whether you think this is “farcical” or not.
The case is ongoing. However, the submission WAS strong enough for the ICJ to issue these interim measures to Isreal:
-Prevent genocide and desist from killing, injuring, destroying life and preventing births
-Desist from incitement, and punish acts of and encouragement to genocide
-Enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance
-Prevent the destruction of and ensure the preservation of evidence
-Submit ongoing reports to the Court on measures taken
-Suspension of military operations
-Refrain from aggravating the situation
There is ZERO evidence that this case was the result of anything Iran and Qatar did. It’s just people connecting two disparate things with a ball of string.
I meant the rape happened while in custody so there’s no way there weren’t a dozen other witnesses and pieces of evidence to who was there.
There is a video of some people in fatigues and masks doing something to someone.
It is not possible to determine from that video who is doing what to whom.
A crime occurred but it is not possible to prove who committed it.
Please see my later post upthread on that scenario. And the concerns about the UN. And if anyone will enforce the actual terms of the ceasefire, which, as you state, is NOT happening under the current scenario.
I was trying to postulate what might be needed as a working cease-fire. It is a hypothetical, nothing more, and was designed to illustrate the difficulties of getting both sides into compliance.
And how, IF we got to that point, how the ceasefire could/should be maintained as the (probably inevitable) violations continued in a sporadic manner.
…I stand by my criticisms of the scenario. It frames it in a way that Hamas is the provocateur and Israel is responding. That isn’t a “fair” scenario, nor does it match what is happening on the ground.
It isn’t a matter of getting “both sides” into compliance. Hamas is stepping down from governance. They currently aren’t attacking Isreal. There is a new provisional governing body that is ready to step in.
There is ONE SIDE that needs to be bought into compliance. Hamas isn’t holding any hostages any more. Israel is holding thousands of what many people consider to be hostages and keeping them in torture camps. Isreal is attacking and killing Palestinians almost on a daily basis. They are still illegal occupiers. They are still threatening and harassing Palestinians daily in the West Bank and restricting food, aid and reconstruction supplies getting into Gaza.
Why the ‘two side’ framing here? What is Hamas doing now that needs to be bought into compliance? How are they the blockers to the process?
You put more credence into Hamas (as opposed to Palestinian’s in general) good faith than I do. That’s fine, our viewpoints differ, it happens.
…my question to you again was:
I don’t think that’s an unfair question, and it doesn’t rely on whether we have “faith” in Hamas or not. There MUST be some basis to your position. How are they blockers to the process?
If there was a neutral party that was actually taking out terrorists, then I don’t see any reason why Israel would have to strike back. If the peacekeepers just tsk tsk the terrorists or turn a blind eye, then the ceasefire is hardly a ceasefire.
Giving my opinion, right now, very little, granted. I do not have faith that they will cede de facto power to the DCAG, though I expect them to fully do so on the surface.
And, being brutally honest, I expect Hamas to take the legitimate hatred Bibi, the settlers, and portions of the IDF have created and then resume hostilities a few years to a decade down the line.
Again, I do not assume good faith from Hamas leaders. I do not assume that the UN or the Security council will provide anything more than verbal and minimal monetary support to keeping the NCAG in power.
Yes, right now Hamas is complying with the terms of the ceasefire (in general), and Israel is abusing it to hell and gone. I do not see any sign that Hamas has abandoned it’s previously spoken long term goals, but they absolutely want time to rebuild their forces (which will be easy to do) until they’re once again ready.
Not because they’re evil TBC, but because it’s far too human, and the historical patterns show it far too likely (not certain though).
The Guardian is known for its top caliber fact checkers. This is getting tiresome- someone comes up with a cite- "They are biased, Pro-Israel!!!). Then a reputable known fair and free of bias cite “They just parroted what Israel told them!”. The Guardian doesnt play that game. They check the facts.
It is to laugh- 
Hamas launched a brutal crackdown to prevent protests calling for an end to the terror group’s rule across the Gaza Strip on Friday.
After demonstrations were planned in 18 locations across the Strip, the streets were unusually empty after organisers had called on Hamas to “disarm and to transfer civil administration of Gaza to a transitional-governing authority”.
Hamas gunmen were seen patrolling the Strip after several days of crackdowns leading up to the day dubbed June 26 Revolution.
Multiple arrests, beatings and death threats for those suspected of inciting or participating in protests appeared to quell the unrest.
One Palestinian in Gaza told The Telegraph: “People are afraid and exhausted. Torn between the desire for change and the risk of being accused of plotting a coup or collaborating with Israel, any popular protest movement appears to have little chance of succeeding.”
So a group that is ready to step down doesnt need to violently oppress protestors that want it to step down. They just say “Sure, we were already planning to anyway”.
Sure, but as we know witnesses are often reluctant or too frightened to come forward.
Yes, even Anti-Occupation pro-Gaza sources admit that. Somebody got away with doing some brutal crimes. Obviously none of the perpetrators wanted to rat out the others. It is a tragedy.
And honestly I dont blame the victim for not coming forward- I’d have second ot even third thoughts about doing that myself. IMHO- solid evidence or not-the IDF should have cashiered the bunch of them.
…I mean it sounds like they are just acting like ICE or a typical American police department. But you don’t believe they are going to suspend elections in the US right?
You are citing a Telegraph article written last month, and their primary source is someone I’m extremely dubious of because of things they have said in the past. It doesn’t say anything about them planning on “staying in power.”
The next step in the process is Israel letting the NCAG into Gaza. You can be as cynical about the process as much as you like. But Israel is the one that is holding up the process right now.
So why the two-sided framing then? Why the hypothetical? What are the difficulties in getting Hamas into compliance?
The difficulty right now is that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. They are committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and are credibly accused of committing genocide in Gaza. Do you not see why “both-side” framing doesn’t work when one of those sides is credibly accused of actively committing a genocide?
Do Palestinians not have the right to defend themselves from being genocided? They are taking the one-sided ceasefire deal because that is all that’s on the table. But is that the best that we can do?
Practically the entire leadership of Hamas that was responsible for the atrocities of October 7th has either been killed or captured. Gaza is devastated and destroyed. Still under blockade. Still mostly rubble. Under occupation. Most people still can’t return home.
We are at the point where resistance is justified. Tell me I’m wrong. Palestine has a right to defend itself from occupation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. If the international community doesn’t step up to the plate and address the constant breaches of international law by Israel, then what choice do they have?
That’s why I think the “both-sides” framing is both wrong and dangerous. What matters isn’t some hypothetical but what is happening on the ground now. And you are failing to address that. Ignoring the elephant in the room. If we don’t address the ongoing atrocities that Israel continues to commit, then no matter what happens next, there will eventually be resistance. And in the face of ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide that the world continues to ignore, that resistance will be justified.
The only way to prevent that happening is by coordinated sanctions and divestment at the same scale as happened to South Africa during apartheid. We cannot tolerate this any more. We are now locked into a rediculous war with Iran. I can barely live right now; the prices for everything are so high. And we are in that war because America followed Israel down the rabbit hole. That’s the problem here. One that “peacekeepers” are not going to be able to fix.
Then we disagree, simple as that. We each have our own bias and reason to doubt. Note I don’t doubt your sincerity, or good faith in your argument, but we don’t agree on our underlying assumptions about the parties in question and therefore draw very different conclusions. Again, we’re human.
…I’m not sure what it is that you disagree with me on. Can you be a bit specific? Do you not think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?