Tell me you didn’t read the whole article without telling me you didn’t read the whole article.
And also, fail to address the rest of my post.
I know, before you linked to it, I thought you would have read it first.
Yes, and…?
Oh, I read the whole thing. Unlike you, obviously, if you think harping on the title refutes anything.
and … obviously you have no counterargument.
That is your counter argument- which of course means- you have none.
No, I made this original argument:
… such as all the places that still sanctioned Gaza after 2007. Or supported the Israeli blockade.
Trying to advance discussion…
What may be the impact and fallout, specifically in the aftermath phase, of the UNRWA possibly getting shut down.
Lots more dead, I’d think.
Also a vacuum for aid that I’m sure some other regional players would be all too happy to fill.
Not sure if any other players regional or otherwise want to fill that void. Some may posture as if they do but clearly another player that will also contain members of Hamas and their enablers wouldn’t be allowed in by Israel. And they all know that.
Which will leave Israel stuck with doing it themselves. Or, in order to avoid doing that on the ground significantly assisting other on the ground groups.
I am wondering several things.
The immediate impact of Israel having to be responsible for the job.
The longer term impact of having what from the Israeli POV was a bad actor out.
Sure, as long as the Zionists would continue to oppress the Palestinians, the militant Palestinians would respond with terrorism, giving the Zionists the pretext to continue their arrogation of the West Bank.
That is a… weirdly asymmetrical description of the ranges of viewpoints involved. The various genocidal viewpoints of some subsets of Palestinians are explicitly and separately enumerated, while the viewpoints of Israelis who feel that genocide of Palestinians is currently right—some of whom are prominent in Israel’s current government—are euphemistically lumped in under the umbrella of “other settler minded mindsets”.
Like I said, these are not the positions of anybody who takes seriously the concept that both sides have legitimate claims to the homeland. On the contrary, they imply that only Israelis are entitled to control the entire homeland, parts of which they can at their discretion choose to transfer limited control over, based on whatever conditions they choose to set.
It’s been an apartheid state since its formation in 1948 during which the Zionists ethnically cleansed much of the areas that had come under their control leaving a drastically reduced Palestinian population there during the civil war that occurred up to the time of the Zionists’ declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, and continuing through to the larger 1948 War.
But without taking rights into account you ignore the crux of the conflict in Palestine, the rights of the Palestinians that the Zionists necessarily violate in order to perpetuate their exclusivist state.
Fair cop. The range of what individual elements on each side think is “right” includes forcible displacement, aka ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide, on the Israeli side. True they are an extremist element even within Bibi’s government (compared to a core belief of Hamas) but they are there and not without representation and power. Many more who don’t wish for genocide but are willing to accept deaths and displacement as a consequence of rooting out Hamas.
Which illustrates the point I was making all the more.
Managing these very disparate perspectives of “right”, matters. Finding enough on each side that can find a solution acceptable and then deliver on defanging those whose views of “right” are not with the overlap, matters to what is in the realm of the possible.
What each of us as outsiders think is “right” or who is what percent “right” or “wronged” matters much less.
And as a conversation has been rehashed sufficiently in past threads. This thread is not intended to be that discussion yet again.
Cite?
Bring a solid cite or withdraw your claim.
Iran and The Houthi for two. This is not a secret pledge they have made.
“Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes,” Hamas said in its first statement in the late 1980s.
The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim. In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.
A senior member of Gaza’s Islamist rulers Hamas has encouraged Palestinians across the globe to kill Jews, drawing outrage from both Israeli and Palestinian officials as well as a U.N. envoy…He continued: “Seven million Palestinians outside, enough warming up, you have Jews with you in every place. You should attack every Jew possible in all the world and kill them.”
Houthi’s are “death to Israel, a curse upon the Jews”
Yes a call for genocide by murder of all Israelis, but not “all Jews must die”. Maybe they should just all become very ill?
I’m going to blame the kidney stone I had last month on the Houthis.
Your own cite said Palestinian leaders were outraged at that, which any decent human being would be. That proves how wrong it is to attribute such a f*cked-up belief to Palestinian people overall. By bringing this up, you’ve underlined how isolated it is.
From your own cite:
Second, it attempted to distinguish between Jews or Judaism and modern Zionism. Hamas said that its fight was against the “racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist” Zionist project, Israel, but not against Judaism or Jews.
Congratulations on making your argument based on a 35-year-old document that was revised years ago.