Israel-Gaza war

[Horus]

Israel's chief media whip on Fox News suggests Israel will move 2 Million Gazans to South America, Europe and other regions to get de-radicalised before cleaning out all of the military capability in Gaza.

Shipping Gazans Overseas

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1Y97D5OyUt/

Israel's main game now is de-radicalizing the Islamists from Gaza who have 'lost their way'.

Israel doing their damndest to make the migrant crisis even worse. I struggle to think of another country so keen on pushing their self inflicted problems on everyone else.

[Devils30]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

There has to be compensation for Nakba.

In other words, those who were displaced and their descendants get cash payment in exchange for giving up their rights to return.

The compensation needs to be of real value, not a penny per square meter.

If they refuse, I guess there are some rural desert areas in Israel that they can be given.

Israel offered considerable compensation in 2000 and would probably up the offer in exchange for a genuine peace agreement. Arafat refused to give up the right to return at that time but talks collapsed soonafter.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Israel's government is indiscriminately killing Palestinians.

If you want to have a real fact-based discussion about what actual indiscriminate killing of civilians looks like, then you should look to some historical examples of civilian casualties in war for comparison. Knowledge of history can help you to better contextualize and understand the true nature of what is actually occurring in Gaza today (hint - it's not what you suggest).

I will look at 4 examples:

1) The 2nd Battle of Fallujah (7 November – 23 December 2004; 1 month, 2 weeks and 2 days)
2) The Battle of Huế (31 January – 2 March 1968; 1 month and 2 days)
3) The Battle of Berlin (16 April – 2 May 1945; 2 weeks and 2 days)
4) The Battle of Nanking (1937) AKA the Rape of Nanking

Two counterpoints:

1. Palestinian deaths were around 20k several weeks ago. At this point we're approaching 40k, and that's not counting casualties that were buried under rubble, crushed by IDF bulldozers, or abducted from Israeli occupied territory, summarily executed and then tossed in an unmarked mass grave. Comparing Gaza to Fallujah at this point is a weak comparison because the battle is nowhere near finished and the bodies have yet to be counted. The Israelis haven't even seriously started in Rafah or other major towns in the south and fighting is still intense and ongoing almost everywhere else. I'd be shocked if the final Gazan civilian death toll doesn't exceed 100k at a minimum, and that's if the Isrealis agree to a total ceasefire and unrestricted access to humanitarian aid within a month. By the time the casualties reach a level you'd consider "genocidal" it will be far too late to do anything about it. Considering the atrocities already committed it's hard to imagine that the Israelis would be any more restrained against the overwhelming majority of Gazans currently living under areas of Hamas control than they'd been against the small minority they've managed to capture so far

https://twitter.com/hzomlot/status/1738550422829170830

https://twitter.com/kisusuli/status/1739622177094127846

https://twitter.com/jaffoneh/status/1739425222913360293

https://twitter.com/RamAbdu/status/1739389532829589583

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1737971522378084517

2. Israel, unlike past genocide perpetrators like Nazi Germany, is incapable of maintaining its military capabilities alone. The extreme dependency of the IDF (and the Israeli economy more broadly) on foreign aid means that they can't just drop a bunker buster on every hospital and call it a day; they have to maintain at least a thin pretense of plausible deniability to continue their campaign. So instead they've copied the Nazi strategy used against the Slavs and other so-called "Untermensch" during Generalplan Ost: intentional deprivation of food and water plus targeting of medical facilities with the goal of promoting the spread of famine and pestilence. Generalplan Ost led to the deaths of a "mere" 15 million people, or just over 5% of the Soviet population, less than that if you consider that GPOst included non-Soviet populations like the Poles. The Turks did something similar during the Armenian Genocide, though unlike the Nazis they weren't restrained by the strength of the Red Army or time and thus were able to use these methods (plus the Death March) to greater effect. Starvation is historically the most reliable method to kill a huge number of people but it takes some time to take effect. It took years for the Nigerians to starve out the Biafrans. If the Israeli campaign and blockade is allowed to continue we will see deaths from disease and malnutrition rapidly shoot up in the coming months in a way that will dwarf any modern battle, perhaps even surpassing the bloody battles of the Second World War.

This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory, Israeli military and political leadership have explicitly stated their desire to use disease and starvation as a weapon against the civilian population of Gaza. Part of why it's so easy to call this a genocide is because typically the perpetrators of genocide in the past weren't nearly as open about their intent:

https://twitter.com/WarMonitors/status/1734554772793868384

Netanyahu has long since surpassed the bloodthirsty rhetoric of Milošević. If he (and the rest of the Israeli government and general staff, since this talk isn't restricted to just Netanyahu) was put in front of an international tribunal it would be the easiest conviction in the world.

But putting aside the question of genocide and looking at it from a purely military perspective there's one battle that most exemplifies the IDF "strategy" here: the 1st Battle of Grozny fought on New Years Eve, 1995. The similarities are striking:

* Opening with the use of overwhelming, indiscriminate firepower against mostly civilian targets ("Shock and Awe") for minimal military benefit
* Sending tanks into deep urban combat with minimal support
* Inability of the attacking force to hold positions against guerrillas using tunnels to quickly retake "secured" positions
* Leadership more concerned with projecting an image of victory to the domestic population and politicians than actually achieving military objectives
* A final civilian casualty rate of around 6%
* A Pyrrhic nominal military victory followed by decisive strategic and political defeat

1st Grozny may not have been genocidal but just about everyone agreed that it was the prime example of a military campaign which indiscriminately killed civilians, a veritable model of "Russian brutality" that every urban battle in Ukraine has since been compared to. And even then you didn't have Yeltsin talking about turning Chechnya into a parking lot or comparing Chechens to ancient tribes that were exterminated down to the last child. At best the Israelis are committing crimes comparable to if not surpassing Grozny as the result of shortsighted bloodthirst and their rhetoric is simply bluster instead of evidence of a conscious attempt to exterminate the Gazans. At worst they're intentionally making Gaza unlivable with the goal of ethnically cleansing the entire strip and are only being held back by their inability to actually conquer the territory where most of the Gazans are, much like how the Nazis were never able to fully implement Generalplan Ost thanks to their defeat at the hands of the Red Army. If the Israeli campaign is allowed to continue for months at this pace then the civilian deathtoll might actually exceed both.

Also this is a side point largely irrelevant to my overall argument but I feel like it's worth disputing,

Yes, Hamas sought to kill (or kidnap and use as hostages) every Israeli that they could manage to kill (or kidnap and use as hostages). When they went into Kibbutzes and when they paraglided into the desert rave, they made their best effort to ensure that there were no survivors. That is what it means to indiscriminately kill - you kill everyone that you can, not caring who is who at all, and you seek to leave no survivors. In other words, the idea is to "shoot anything that moves."

Did they, though? The official Israeli Oct 7 death count is ~400 "legitimate military targets" (IDF, police, etc) and ~700 civilians. When you consider that

* Israeli military positions are located in civilian kibbutzim
* One of the first locations where Hamas forces made contact with Israelis was at a rave with thousands of civilians present and few to no soldiers (reports vary)
* Armed but non-uniformed reservists attacked Al-Qassam fighters, often from civilian homes and civilian vehicles
* Israeli forces have been documented on video engaging in combat while using civilian vehicles with civilians still inside as cover
* Many of the casualties ascribed to Hamas, including one of the literal posterchildren of "Hamas brutality", have since been revealed to have actually died from the IDF indiscriminately firing into cars and houses with Hellfire Missiles and tank shells

https://twitter.com/davidsheen/status/1740073099163574569

it doesn't seem like Hamas was just shooting anything that moved. There were certainly atrocities and acts of terror but if the primary goal was to kill as many Israelis as possible then the civilian death toll would have been in the thousands instead of the hundreds. Plus if they had prioritized civilian targets instead of military bases then IDF casualties would be fewer too.

[PSOL]

"Guevarism" is a dead tendency because most leftists thought it was stupid ultra-leftism and had that actualized when Guevara went on a suicide mission to Bolivia.

The leading parties in Cuba and Nicaragua were not Focoists lmao. Most effective communist movements elsewhere during the Cold War were anti-revisionists stanning the sense given out of China and Albania.

Hamas is not even that extreme compared to the more adventurist factions like the Wahhabis or PFLP–GC.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Look you guys really can not just post tons and tons of tweets and expect anyone to read your posts. Not only do they take up an enormous amount of space (and also make the page jump all over while they're loading, which is annoying), but they're a very frustrating form of conversation because you can spend five seconds dumping a tweet and then expect someone else to spend five minutes responding to it, so when you just post tons and tons of tweets it amounts to little more than a lazy gish gallop.  Except it's a less effective gish gallop since unlike in the sorts of live conversations Duane Gish participated in, you don't have a captive audience on Atlas since anyone can just scroll past your massive wall of tweet embeds.



The thing about all these Tweets from red-upside-down-triangle Twitter and various Palestinian activists is that more often than not when you dig into them, the story is either completely fabricated (I've seen an enormous number of pictures/videos from Syria captioned with "look what the IDF is doing") or absurdly twisted to the point where it can fairly be called a lie since the misrepresentation is being intentionally done to prop up a narrative or make a point that it does not actually support.

There's this concept called "integrity" where when you lie over and over and over and over again, you not only lose the right to have someone assume you're telling the truth, but eventually you also lose the right to demand that someone even invest time proving that what you're saying is a lie.

But even if every single Tweet you posted were true, these are isolated incidents of bad behavior by individual IDF forces that do not, in aggregate, spell out a campaign of genocide.  You could find similar anecdotes at a similar volume from pretty much any military conflict, especially modern ones where phones and cameras are ubiquitous.  The higher-level aggregation of everything that's happening is what actually matters -- and this is what was covered in The Impartial Spectator's post.

After all this is essentially the exact same thing Russia has been doing for the last two years to try and discredit the Ukrainian army and degrade its support among Americans: post a nonstop stream of content highlighting bad behavior by individual Ukrainians, often making liberal use of exaggeration, misrepresentation or outright fabrication.

[Pres Mike]

In terms of two state solution, has anyone thought of dealing separately with Golan Heights, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip as seems would be easier?

Golan Heights: Previously part of Syria but populated mostly by Druze, so not sure they wish to join either Syria or a Palestinian state.  I would not be shocked if put to a referendum, most would vote to join Israel as while not great, at least would probably be treated better than in other two.  Arab Christians 10-15% of Arab population before 1948 while today only 2.5% in West Bank, less than 1% in Gaza while 10% of Arabs in Israel so that suggests Palestine is not great if you are Arab but not Muslim.

East Jerusalem: Dividing the city into two separate countries is totally unrealistic.  Only feasible if they have open borders like EU does, but fat chance either side would agree to that.  Having it jointly controlled or international community agreeing to recognize it as part of Israel on condition all Palestinians living there given automatic Israeli citizenship (today they are not offered such) and no more evictions from land, any Israeli settlements have to be purchased in a fair market transaction seems more realistic.

West Bank: Unlike Gaza, you have almost 500,000 settlers and dismantling all Israeli settlements is not feasible.  At same time West Bank is in somewhat better shape economically than Gaza so if its own state could work or at least better chance than Gaza.  Main thing would be making it contiguous and dismantling settlements that obstruct that or perhaps even doing land swaps as majority of settlements near Green line while many Arab villages in Israel near Green line so swapping two could work while dismantling settlements deep into West Bank.  Other is a freeze and ban any Israelis from moving to settlements while requiring all children born there to leave once reach adulthood but at same time let adults living there remain there thus would disappear once they die off.  Never mind Israel doesn't trust Palestinians and since highest points on Ridge are in West Bank, legitimate worry if transferred to Palestinian state it would be easy to launch an attack on Israel as many won't accept a Palestinian state; they want Israel wiped off the map. 

Gaza Strip: Doesn't have the settlement issue like West Bank, but is a lot poorer and could easily become a failed state.  I can see how Israel might prefer two to be separate.  Best option here would be transferring Gaza to Egypt but zero chance that happens as Egypt doesn't want them as high cost and fears more terrorism.

As a Palestinian American, I know dividing Jerusalem is never going to happen. The best thing would give custodianship of the Al Aqsa Mosque to Palestine and allowing free movement of Palestinian citizens to travel and pray there (its only an hour drive from Ramallah). Right now the royal family of Jordan has custodianship.

Thats basically what was offered in 2001 and 2008 but was turned down. While Abbas knew that was the best deal, its a very bitter pill for the Palestinian people to not have full control of the third most holy place in Islam.

I also acknowlege that Israel will never allow millions of Palestinian refugees to return. The best solution would be allow some to move to an indepedent Palestine and the rest given citizenship in the countries they live in. Jordan has done that for decades but nations like Syria and Lebanon still treat the millions of Palestinian refugees as a problem that will eventually disappear.

[Meclazine for Israel]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.


(Google Maps)

That is one blessed KFC store. I bet Jesus was born right out the back of that KFC in a manger. We need to rename that particular store location.

[patzer]

Israel's chief media whip on Fox News suggests Israel will move 2 Million Gazans to South America, Europe and other regions to get de-radicalised before cleaning out all of the military capability in Gaza.

Shipping Gazans Overseas

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1Y97D5OyUt/

Israel's main game now is de-radicalizing the Islamists from Gaza who have 'lost their way'.

This doesn't solve the fundamental issue of finding a country willing to accept refugees from Gaza.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

[Meclazine for Israel]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

[Comrade Funk]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

Almost like it's all nonsense, right?

[Pres Mike]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

Not to get into a theologian debate, but Jesus is also a beloved prophet in Islam

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

Almost like it's all nonsense, right?

How about we don't insult each other's religious beliefs? This thread is duscussing a modern geopolitical conflict. Not religion. Despite many ignorant people thinking the Israeli-Arab conflict is about religion, surely the average poster here is intellgient enough to know it isn't

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

While Muhammad (S) probably did have exposure to Christianity through his various caravan trips back and forth from Roman Syria and notably meeting a Christian monk named Bahira, he was still illiterate, and thus could not have read either the Old Testament and New Testament to "plagiarize" from.

Plus this event has been confirmed in various hadiths, which has an extremely rigorous verification process when they were recorded down after the Prophet's (S) death.

[Pres Mike]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

What are you talking about? This is exactly what the Palestinians want, a state with 1967 borders and for the illegal Israeli settlements to leave.

Israel and Palestine agreed to this in 1993. Well to be exact, they agreeded that a future Palestinian state would be part of 1967 borders. Palestine expected all of 1967, Israel said the future Palestinian state would be INSIDE the 1967 borders. In peace talks that occured in 2001, 2005 and 2008, Israel offered peace plans that offered Palestine 50-75% of the West Bank.

The best offer was in 2008. Olmert offered 97% of the West Bank. Abbas nearly accepted but took too long. Abbas has since shared regret on not taking the deal. Than Olmert was arrested on corruption charges. Which I find very suspicious to be honest. The best chance for peace ever and the Israeli PM is charged for corruption at the same time...

[PSOL]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

While Muhammad (S) probably did have exposure to Christianity through his various caravan trips back and forth from Roman Syria and notably meeting a Christian monk named Bahira, he was still illiterate, and thus could not have read either the Old Testament and New Testament to "plagiarize" from.

Plus this event has been confirmed in various hadiths, which has an extremely high verification process when they were recorded down after the Prophet's (S) death.

From a Sunni point of view of course, not the actual story.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

While Muhammad (S) probably did have exposure to Christianity through his various caravan trips back and forth from Roman Syria and notably meeting a Christian monk named Bahira, he was still illiterate, and thus could not have read either the Old Testament and New Testament to "plagiarize" from.

Plus this event has been confirmed in various hadiths, which has an extremely high verification process when they were recorded down after the Prophet's (S) death.

From a Sunni point of view of course, not the actual story.

There's a Shiite version of this? Interesting, do tell.

[PSOL]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

While Muhammad (S) probably did have exposure to Christianity through his various caravan trips back and forth from Roman Syria and notably meeting a Christian monk named Bahira, he was still illiterate, and thus could not have read either the Old Testament and New Testament to "plagiarize" from.

Plus this event has been confirmed in various hadiths, which has an extremely high verification process when they were recorded down after the Prophet's (S) death.

From a Sunni point of view of course, not the actual story.

There's a Shiite version of this? Interesting, do tell.

Mainly rejection of the Hadiths and that Muhammad was literate.

[pppolitics]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

There has to be compensation for Nakba.

In other words, those who were displaced and their descendants get cash payment in exchange for giving up their rights to return.

The compensation needs to be of real value, not a penny per square meter.

If they refuse, I guess there are some rural desert areas in Israel that they can be given.

Israel offered considerable compensation in 2000 and would probably up the offer in exchange for a genuine peace agreement. Arafat refused to give up the right to return at that time but talks collapsed soonafter.

Arafat doesn't matter.

The choice should be left to those who were displaced and their descendants.

What do they want? Cash compensation or right to return?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

There has to be compensation for Nakba.

In other words, those who were displaced and their descendants get cash payment in exchange for giving up their rights to return.

The compensation needs to be of real value, not a penny per square meter.

If they refuse, I guess there are some rural desert areas in Israel that they can be given.

Israel offered considerable compensation in 2000 and would probably up the offer in exchange for a genuine peace agreement. Arafat refused to give up the right to return at that time but talks collapsed soonafter.

Arafat doesn't matter.

The choice should be left to those who were displaced and their descendants.

What do they want? Cash compensation or right to return?

Right of return is not and never will be on the table.  Deal with it

[Tintrlvr]

....the third most holy place in Islam.

Why is the third most Holy Site of Islam right on top of a Jewish site and right next to the centre of Christianity? We don't build catholic churches right next to the Kaaba.

I just looked up the location of Bethlehem.
-Snip-

Because Al-Aqsa or the Temple Mount is where Prophet Muhammad (S) ascended to Heaven in the event known as Isra and Miraj.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, hang on a second. The Prophet Muhammad just happened to do exactly what the Bible said Jesus did six centuries earlier on a Jewish Holy site?

Sounds like plagiarism.

And this aspect of the Jesus story is an obvious play on the older story of the ascension of Elijah, as well as various Roman traditions of ascension (Romulus was said to have ascended into heaven on a cloud, for example). All of these religious and cultural traditions mix fact and obvious fiction, and play off of and reinterpret one another. You can either take none of them seriously or all of them, but you really can't complain about one borrowing another's fictional telling.

[Devils30]

One thing I would like to add.

Let me present the following axioms that I would guess most anti-Israel liberals would agree with:

1) Hamas is an evil organization, and their elimination would be a great good for the world

2) What Hamas did on October 7 was so egregiously evil that it makes their destruction a matter of immediate urgency

3) The only way to destroy Hamas is via military action

4) Israel has been genocidal, or at least indiscriminate and brutal, in their treatment of the Palestinians over the course of this conflict, in a way that is completely unnecessary and avoidable

5) Israel's conduct is so abhorrent that in the great value tradeoff, it is better for them to end operations (allowing Hamas to continue to exist) than to continue operations (committing more atrocities)

#3 is wrong.

Hamas can never be destroyed militarily since it is as much an ideology as a militant group.

The only way to destroy Hamas is for the people to reject it.

Instead, Israel is driving people right into Hamas's arms.

No, Hamas is a terrorist group that was created 35 years ago during the First Intafada.  What is its ideology that can't be destroyed?  "We hate the Jews, let's use military force to kill them all"?  That's been the ideology of the Arabs in the Levant region since before the founding of Israel.  It predates Hamas by millenia.

Actually the power and popularity of that ideology has waned substantially since the days of the Camp David Accords, which shows that it can be defeated.  But an ideology alone isn't enough to kill people -- you need an organized, well-funded, well-armed, well-trained violent group with the means to act on that ideology.  Which is what Hamas is.

Take that away and you just have a bunch of dudes full of hatred but without the means to rape women, kill men, torture the elderly, and kidnap children that Hamas has.

What most Palestinians want is the same as what most people want: comfy lives and good jobs.

If people reject Hamas, then it can't hide among the population.

Once it can't hide, it can be targeted and destroyed.

For that to happen, the Palestinians have to believe that their best days have yet to come (upward mobility) and that the Israeli government is legitimate as opposed to a Zionist organization bent on stealing their lands.

If the Palestinians had an Anwar Sadat who would recognize Israel on its 1967 borders under the condition that Israel withdraw from the West Bank (at least all settlements far from the Israel/West Bank border that could not be part of a viable land swap), I think Israel would face significant pressure from the US, NATO countries AND many liberal Jews. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan could fund a Palestinian state. Of course this is easier with both Hamas and Netanyahu out of the picture.

But this is how the Palestinians get comfy lives and good jobs, not the pipe dream of 1948 borders.

There has to be compensation for Nakba.

In other words, those who were displaced and their descendants get cash payment in exchange for giving up their rights to return.

The compensation needs to be of real value, not a penny per square meter.

If they refuse, I guess there are some rural desert areas in Israel that they can be given.

Israel offered considerable compensation in 2000 and would probably up the offer in exchange for a genuine peace agreement. Arafat refused to give up the right to return at that time but talks collapsed soonafter.

Arafat doesn't matter.

The choice should be left to those who were displaced and their descendants.

What do they want? Cash compensation or right to return?

Israel would be cool with cash compensation. Although without a peace agreement, any cash compensation will surely go to build more bombs.

Arafat's legacy does matter in terms of where we are now, right of return really makes no sense when every town is completely different than it was in 1948. It is more productive to build permanent homes for Palestinians (West Bank has plenty of space to build assuming Israel tears down the settlements 20 miles inside and I assume any treaty would give Gazans the right to move there). I just don't think the college campus "river to the sea" rhetoric is one bit productive.

[patzer]

Israel would be cool with cash compensation. Although without a peace agreement, any cash compensation will surely go to build more bombs.

Arafat's legacy does matter in terms of where we are now, right of return really makes no sense when every town is completely different than it was in 1948. It is more productive to build permanent homes for Palestinians (West Bank has plenty of space to build assuming Israel tears down the settlements 20 miles inside and I assume any treaty would give Gazans the right to move there). I just don't think the college campus "river to the sea" rhetoric is one bit productive.

Realistically though, is giving a population of people who has high rates of antisemitism control of a highland region within ten miles of most major Israeli cities actually a good idea? Even in the event of a peace agreement being signed, the opinions of average Palestinians aren't necessarily going to change.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

At this point the descendants of those evicted in Nakba have as good as a claim to the land they lost in the later 1940s as the descendants of Germans kicked out of East Prussia do.
Right of return is reasonable for either both sides or none of them, but in the former case it definitely should not entail getting the exact land back. It'd be more reasonable for them to get new communities with government backing under the framework of a state with equality for both communities.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At the Camp David summit, Israel offered loads of financial compensation to the Palestinians in exchange for abandoning the right-of-return demand.  Arafat rejected this.  I think Israel would be more than willing to pay pretty much any amount of money to secure peace.  What they're not willing to do is to hand over tons of money to the Palestinians as some sort of speculative operation to try and make things good enough that Palestinians will subsequently decide to accept peace.

That summit was 23 years ago, had very contradictory reports on what happened, and involves leaders long out of power.

[Silent Hunter]

At this point the descendants of those evicted in Nakba have as good as a claim to the land they lost in the later 1940s as the descendants of Germans kicked out of East Prussia do.
Right of return is reasonable for either both sides or none of them, but in the former case it definitely should not entail getting the exact land back.

The Germans didn't get their land back - any claim to that was dropped in 1990 - but they did get right of return to nearly all of it when Poland and Lithuania joined the EU. Not many of them bothered to exercise it.