256 Gazans killed by unlawful Israeli bombardment

[Insaanistan]

Hot take:
Militants existing near civilians≠human shields and isn’t an excuse to kill civilians.

I have no idea why I came back, if this is the quality of debate, but ugh. I did and this is a really bad take.

Obviously if we followed your thesis to its logical conclusion then anyone could place all their military assets in dangerously close proximity to civilians, and this gain immunity from any counterattack.

Israel could nuke Cairo and Egypt could not respond as long as the missiles were launched from civilian areas.

It is not by default always wrong for civilian deaths to occur in wartime. It is really inevitable. We have laws of war designed to REDUCE, but they do not eliminate civilian deaths. You absolutely CAN legally attack a military target if it is in civilian area. Yes you are supposed to use the weapons you can that can best discriminate. For example if you can use a small accurate missile instead of a big gravity bomb you should do so. You would not use incendiary weapons in civilian areas in most cases.

Also the military advantage you are likely to gain from the attack should be proportional to the risk to civilians.

For example if killing an enemy general, even if it means a dozen surrounding civilians will die will greatly shorten the war, then it might be valid. The gain of ending the war might outweigh the risk to civilians.

But killing a single enlisted cook, whose death would not greatly help your military aim, while causing the same dozen deaths is probably not valid.

You are supposed to take certain steps to reasonably reduce civilian casualties. You are not required to avoid the entirely as if you were, you could not defend yourself at all in many cases.

Also Hamas does not follow the rules of war designed to reduce such casualties. Hamas does not clearly distinguish between its own military forces and the civilians in the area it controls. Israel does.

You are required to give your military forces distinct uniforms/insignia such that they are easily differentiated from civilians.

Hamas however does not do so. They do not draw that line. Many of their attacks are launched by people not officially members of an organized military force.

Even if you are not a uniformed member of the armed forces, if you grab a gun and get involved in the fighting you are a combatant.

So it is much more complicated than that. Sometimes there are reasonable justifications for civilian deaths within the laws of war.

And Israel taken some steps to reduce casualties such as given warnings prior to destroying certain targets, allowing civilians to evacuate the area. Could Israel do more? Almost certainly. But you can only do so much without fatally undermined your military objectives, which you are not required to do.

Could Israel be better? Sure. But you have to be far more specific in how you want them to improve in their decisions on which targets to hit and which weapons to use. Not just “civilians died, Israel bad”.

And you are unlikely to look at it fairly given your bias in the matter.

I am biased to support the side that isn’t committing apartheid, yes.

In chess, when you see an opportunity to take someone’s queen, you don’t go for it just because the opportunity is there. You got bishops and rooks and what not to think about.
Only in this game of chess, you have civilians to think about, civilians who have lives (just barely, only the ones sustainable under Israel’s blockade), families (if they haven’t been killed in IDF airstrikes) and hopes and dreams (if they haven’t been turned into mere fantasies or completely shattered by Israel’s actions.)
No, I refuse to support killing civilians. I dunno about you, but I happen to think civilian life is just as valuable when in proximity to a militant or terrorist as it is when they’re far away from ‘em.

[Novus America]

I have no idea why I came back, if this is the quality of debate, but ugh. I did and this is a really bad take.

Obviously if we followed your thesis to its logical conclusion then anyone could place all their military assets in dangerously close proximity to civilians, and this gain immunity from any counterattack.

Israel could nuke Cairo and Egypt could not respond as long as the missiles were launched from civilian areas.

It is not by default always wrong for civilian deaths to occur in wartime. It is really inevitable. We have laws of war designed to REDUCE, but they do not eliminate civilian deaths. You absolutely CAN legally attack a military target if it is in civilian area. Yes you are supposed to use the weapons you can that can best discriminate. For example if you can use a small accurate missile instead of a big gravity bomb you should do so. You would not use incendiary weapons in civilian areas in most cases.

Also the military advantage you are likely to gain from the attack should be proportional to the risk to civilians.

For example if killing an enemy general, even if it means a dozen surrounding civilians will die will greatly shorten the war, then it might be valid. The gain of ending the war might outweigh the risk to civilians.

But killing a single enlisted cook, whose death would not greatly help your military aim, while causing the same dozen deaths is probably not valid.

You are supposed to take certain steps to reasonably reduce civilian casualties. You are not required to avoid the entirely as if you were, you could not defend yourself at all in many cases.

Also Hamas does not follow the rules of war designed to reduce such casualties. Hamas does not clearly distinguish between its own military forces and the civilians in the area it controls. Israel does.

You are required to give your military forces distinct uniforms/insignia such that they are easily differentiated from civilians.

Hamas however does not do so. They do not draw that line. Many of their attacks are launched by people not officially members of an organized military force.

Even if you are not a uniformed member of the armed forces, if you grab a gun and get involved in the fighting you are a combatant.

So it is much more complicated than that. Sometimes there are reasonable justifications for civilian deaths within the laws of war.

And Israel taken some steps to reduce casualties such as given warnings prior to destroying certain targets, allowing civilians to evacuate the area. Could Israel do more? Almost certainly. But you can only do so much without fatally undermined your military objectives, which you are not required to do.

Could Israel be better? Sure. But you have to be far more specific in how you want them to improve in their decisions on which targets to hit and which weapons to use. Not just “civilians died, Israel bad”.

And you are unlikely to look at it fairly given your bias in the matter.

Israel's own soldiers admitted to intentionally targeting civilian buildings to let off steam. They are lying when they say they're trying to minimize casualties.

If you have a specific case were civilian buildings were deliberately destroyed without legitimate military purpose for doing so, then that would generally be a war crime. I have no doubts that some Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes. I said Israel has taken SOME steps to reduce casualties, I never claimed they have taken all possible steps, or always adhere to such steps.

Again if we want to legitimately discuss this we have to be far more specific. You have to point out a specific case where you think that there was no legitimate military objective, prohibited weapons were used, the risk to civilians grossly outweighed the military objectives to be achieved (and there is a lot of subjectivity there), etc.

My point is not to claim Israeli forces have never committed a war crime, that would be false. My point is simply you cannot assume all their actions are war crimes because civilians died.

[Saiwania]

Alright, assuming a Palestinian is opposed to Israel's actions in general, how should they go about opposing Israel without incurring Israel's wrath?

If using physical violence against Israeli property/citizens either military or civilian is terrorism, and being part of BDS or doing a general strike is antisemitism, what is there left in terms of valid means of aligning against what Israel wants?

I'm in full agreement that no rockets should be fired from Gaza but Gaza also is nothing but civilian dwellings or a sprawling urban center. Of course anything launched from Gaza isn't going to be out in the open or from what is a purely military target if it is in retaliation to Israeli actions like bombing Gaza. In addition, the Palestinian side probably doesn't have the advantage of having accurate coordinates/smart munitions. Hence the crude firing of anything they have towards Israel without concern for where the rockets land, provided it still explodes within Israeli territory.

[Insaanistan]

Israel's own soldiers admitted to intentionally targeting civilian buildings to let off steam. They are lying when they say they're trying to minimize casualties.

If you have a specific case were civilian buildings were deliberately destroyed without legitimate military purpose for doing so, then that would generally be a war crime. I have no doubts that some Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes. I said Israel has taken SOME steps to reduce casualties, I never claimed they have taken all possible steps, or always adhere to such steps.

Again if we want to legitimately discuss this we have to be far more specific. You have to point out a specific case where you think that there was no legitimate military objective, prohibited weapons were used, the risk to civilians grossly outweighed the military objectives to be achieved (and there is a lot of subjectivity there), etc.

My point is not to claim Israeli forces have never committed a war crime, that would be false. My point is simply you cannot assume all their actions are war crimes because civilians died.

I mean, Israel just bombed an ice cream factory, a hospital, a press building, a refugee camp...
Targeting those is, and I’ll quote international law “kinda cringe, ngl”.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Alright, assuming a Palestinian is opposed to Israel's actions in general, how should they go about opposing Israel without incurring Israel's wrath?

If using physical violence against Israeli property/citizens either military or civilian is terrorism, and being part of BDS or doing a general strike is antisemitism, what is there left in terms of valid means of aligning against what Israel wants?

BDS isn't antisemitism and anyone who says that disrespects the memory of those who lost their lives in the holocaust and every pogrom before that. You of all people calling BDS racists is ironic considering most of us are explicitly anti racist and you are literally a white supremacist.

[Novus America]

If you have a specific case were civilian buildings were deliberately destroyed without legitimate military purpose for doing so, then that would generally be a war crime. I have no doubts that some Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes. I said Israel has taken SOME steps to reduce casualties, I never claimed they have taken all possible steps, or always adhere to such steps.

Again if we want to legitimately discuss this we have to be far more specific. You have to point out a specific case where you think that there was no legitimate military objective, prohibited weapons were used, the risk to civilians grossly outweighed the military objectives to be achieved (and there is a lot of subjectivity there), etc.

My point is not to claim Israeli forces have never committed a war crime, that would be false. My point is simply you cannot assume all their actions are war crimes because civilians died.

I mean, Israel just bombed an ice cream factory, a hospital, a press building, a refugee camp...
Targeting those is, and I’ll quote international law “kinda cringe, ngl”.

If you are going to stay at this low a level of in debating, there is no reason in even continuing to debate.

For example the press building. It was claimed it was also being used as a Hamas command center.
Israel also warned the journalists to evacuate ahead of time.

So it might have been valid. Again this is a complicated matter. But you seem completely unwilling to engage in serious nuanced debate.

[Insaanistan]

I mean, Israel just bombed an ice cream factory, a hospital, a press building, a refugee camp...
Targeting those is, and I’ll quote international law “kinda cringe, ngl”.

If you are going to stay at this low a level of in debating, there is no reason in even continuing to debate.

For example the press building. It was claimed it was also being used as a Hamas command center.
Israel also warned the journalists to evacuate ahead of time.

So it might have been valid. Again this is a complicated matter. But you seem completely unwilling to engage in serious nuanced debate.

And did Israel ever give evidence it was a Hamas building?
Did you ever stop to think that maybe 2 or 3 JOURNALIST ORGANIZATIONS might be able to tell whether or not militants were using the building? Did you ever consider maybe they were targeted for being press rather than for any actual military need? Maybe... just maybe... the country whose soldiers admit they were ordered to shoot anything that moved including civilians while in Gaza in 2014, the army accused of targeting civilians at protests, which is part of the country now being charged with apartheid by the Human f*cking Rights Watch, might be... what’s the word I’m looking for... oh, I got it!: lying.

[Novus America]

I have no idea why I came back, if this is the quality of debate, but ugh. I did and this is a really bad take.

Obviously if we followed your thesis to its logical conclusion then anyone could place all their military assets in dangerously close proximity to civilians, and this gain immunity from any counterattack.

Israel could nuke Cairo and Egypt could not respond as long as the missiles were launched from civilian areas.

It is not by default always wrong for civilian deaths to occur in wartime. It is really inevitable. We have laws of war designed to REDUCE, but they do not eliminate civilian deaths. You absolutely CAN legally attack a military target if it is in civilian area. Yes you are supposed to use the weapons you can that can best discriminate. For example if you can use a small accurate missile instead of a big gravity bomb you should do so. You would not use incendiary weapons in civilian areas in most cases.

Also the military advantage you are likely to gain from the attack should be proportional to the risk to civilians.

For example if killing an enemy general, even if it means a dozen surrounding civilians will die will greatly shorten the war, then it might be valid. The gain of ending the war might outweigh the risk to civilians.

But killing a single enlisted cook, whose death would not greatly help your military aim, while causing the same dozen deaths is probably not valid.

You are supposed to take certain steps to reasonably reduce civilian casualties. You are not required to avoid the entirely as if you were, you could not defend yourself at all in many cases.

Also Hamas does not follow the rules of war designed to reduce such casualties. Hamas does not clearly distinguish between its own military forces and the civilians in the area it controls. Israel does.

You are required to give your military forces distinct uniforms/insignia such that they are easily differentiated from civilians.

Hamas however does not do so. They do not draw that line. Many of their attacks are launched by people not officially members of an organized military force.

Even if you are not a uniformed member of the armed forces, if you grab a gun and get involved in the fighting you are a combatant.

So it is much more complicated than that. Sometimes there are reasonable justifications for civilian deaths within the laws of war.

And Israel taken some steps to reduce casualties such as given warnings prior to destroying certain targets, allowing civilians to evacuate the area. Could Israel do more? Almost certainly. But you can only do so much without fatally undermined your military objectives, which you are not required to do.

Could Israel be better? Sure. But you have to be far more specific in how you want them to improve in their decisions on which targets to hit and which weapons to use. Not just “civilians died, Israel bad”.

And you are unlikely to look at it fairly given your bias in the matter.

I am biased to support the side that isn’t committing apartheid, yes.

In chess, when you see an opportunity to take someone’s queen, you don’t go for it just because the opportunity is there. You got bishops and rooks and what not to think about.
Only in this game of chess, you have civilians to think about, civilians who have lives (just barely, only the ones sustainable under Israel’s blockade), families (if they haven’t been killed in IDF airstrikes) and hopes and dreams (if they haven’t been turned into mere fantasies or completely shattered by Israel’s actions.)
No, I refuse to support killing civilians. I dunno about you, but I happen to think civilian life is just as valuable when in proximity to a militant or terrorist as it is when they’re far away from ‘em.

Decapitation strikes are a thing, and often the best way to fight...

If you are seeking to end the war quickly with the least casualties then it is best to take out the leadership without fighting your way through their soldiers. Chess is not a good approximation of modern warfare.

If you could just drop a bomb on the opposing king and win, you would not only definitely do so, it would also be considered inhumane to kill larger number of your and there soldiers unnecessarily fighting your way through.

Again you are repeating yourself. If Israel was launching missiles from the middle of Tel Aviv, would you be against trying to take out those missiles if you were fighting against Israel? That makes no sense. You are repeating a nonsensical argument. If the target is a legitimate military target, and you try to take reasonable steps to avoid excessive civilian casualties, you still will often hit a target even when it sometimes put civilians at risk. The laws of war allow it, if certain criteria are met.

I am not in favor of killing civilians for the sake of killing them. Obviously. I am simply pointing out the laws of war do not require you to avoid all civilian casualties, nor do they ban you from attacking targets in civilian areas, because if sometimes you have to. You do not simply surrender because your enemy puts their own civilians at risk.

It is not say civilian lives are less valuable because they are near a military target, but sometimes the necessity of taking out that military target can outweigh the risk to civilians. It really is all a complex cost benefit analysis, not a simple matter. That is what the actual laws of war say.

And on the first part if you take that sort of black or white dichotomy then are you on the side of Hamas? Again it is a completed situation, not a simple matter. Even if you disagree with Israel’s policies in East Jerusalem (and I do not agree with everything they have done there) that still does not require they not respond when Hamas launches missiles at Israel. Or make Israel responding automatically a war crime.

[Novus America]

If you are going to stay at this low a level of in debating, there is no reason in even continuing to debate.

For example the press building. It was claimed it was also being used as a Hamas command center.
Israel also warned the journalists to evacuate ahead of time.

So it might have been valid. Again this is a complicated matter. But you seem completely unwilling to engage in serious nuanced debate.

And did Israel ever give evidence it was a Hamas building?
Did you ever stop to think that maybe 2 or 3 JOURNALIST ORGANIZATIONS might be able to tell whether or not militants were using the building? Did you ever consider maybe they were targeted for being press rather than for any actual military need? Maybe... just maybe... the country whose soldiers admit they were ordered to shoot anything that moved including civilians while in Gaza in 2014, the army accused of targeting civilians at protests, which is part of the country now being charged with apartheid by the Human f*cking Rights Watch, might be... what’s the word I’m looking for... oh, I got it!: lying.

Israel says they did provide the evidence. And sure it is possible Israel was lying. I did not say I know for certainty that attack was valid. I simply pointed out it COULD be valid if certain criteria where met.
This is a nuanced argument, and there is subjectivity involved. Point is simply you cannot say for certainty it was wrong, just because civilians were put at risk, even killed, because a lot of things go into the decision making process under the laws of war. Civilian casualties are A consideration obviously. But they are not the ONLY consideration.
The laws of war are written as such to provide some guidance on what civilian casualties are unavoidable vs which ones were not. Admittedly there is still a lot of gray area with them.

Did it also occur to you maybe Hamas, which has a far worse record on human rights was lying instead?
Of course we cannot assume Hamas always lies, just because they are horrific on human rights. But they certainly may have,
It is possible the strike on that building was valid. It is possible it was not. I cannot yet make a decision for certainty obviously. And neither can you.

Maybe Israel did lie, maybe they did not. Sometimes Israel does bad things, but that does not mean we can automatically assume everything they do is bad. You Manichean thinking is problematic.

I do not assume everything the Palestinian Arab side does is bad either.

The reason why this conflict is so damn hard to solve is because it is so damn complicated.
If it was easy to solve, in a way the international community might accept, within the bounds of the complexities of international law, and the domestic political complexities amongst both the Israeli and Palestinian Arabs, then it would have been solved. It will not be solved, because it is too difficult to resolve within those constraints.

[Novus America]

Protests at Lebanon-Israel border mark 21 years since Israel left and the recent conclusion to Gaza fighting
Hamas and Fatah fighters clash at al-Aqsa

Palestinian civil war now?

Since 2007. The Palestinian Arabs have been in a civil war since 2007, this is just a continuation of it.

Which makes the situation that much more of a mess. It is not Israel vs Palestine, it is a three way war (at the minimum).
You have the Israel Palestinian conflict at the same time the Palestinian Arabs are engulfed in an ongoing civil war.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Palestinian civil war now?

Since 2007. The Palestinian Arabs have been in a civil war since 2007, this is just a continuation of it.

Which makes the situation that much more of a mess. It is not Israel vs Palestine, it is a three way war (at the minimum).
You have the Israel Palestinian conflict at the same time the Palestinian Arabs are engulfed in an ongoing civil war.

Nice to see you back.

[Dowaesk]

Palestinian civil war now?

Since 2007. The Palestinian Arabs have been in a civil war since 2007, this is just a continuation of it.

Which makes the situation that much more of a mess. It is not Israel vs Palestine, it is a three way war (at the minimum).
You have the Israel Palestinian conflict at the same time the Palestinian Arabs are engulfed in an ongoing civil war.

These sort of things happen. An actual Palestinian civil war is unlikely. Or unless Israel thinks its a good idea and somehow makes one happen.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Since 2007. The Palestinian Arabs have been in a civil war since 2007, this is just a continuation of it.

Which makes the situation that much more of a mess. It is not Israel vs Palestine, it is a three way war (at the minimum).
You have the Israel Palestinian conflict at the same time the Palestinian Arabs are engulfed in an ongoing civil war.

Nice to see you back.

Where did you go Novus?

[Novus America]

Israel talks about Hamas' human shields but you kind of have to wonder what those settlements are about. Think about it, how does Israel keep getting away with annexing more of the West Bank? If they occupied it with soldiers, those are legitimate targets, but build settlements and fill them with families and babies, then Palestine either has to accept the annexation or attack the settlements which makes them "terrorists".

Well according to Hamas, Tel Aviv is a illegal settlement. One issue here is while many in the international community want to stick to the pre 1967 Green Line (under which a Palestinian Arab state did not exist, before 1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt Gaza) neither all Israeli nor all Palestinians have accepted that temporary ceasefire line as the permanent border.

Hamas is not targeting those settlements. Rather targeting areas the vast majority of the world accept as part of Israel.
Partly this is because Hamas does not really have much capability to hit those settlements, but partially because to Hamas all Israelis cities are illegal settlements.

[Novus America]

Since 2007. The Palestinian Arabs have been in a civil war since 2007, this is just a continuation of it.

Which makes the situation that much more of a mess. It is not Israel vs Palestine, it is a three way war (at the minimum).
You have the Israel Palestinian conflict at the same time the Palestinian Arabs are engulfed in an ongoing civil war.

Nice to see you back.

Thank you, although I might not stick around long. Given the reasons I left have not been resolved.
Nice to see you though, even when I do not agree with you have well thought out stances.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Nice to see you back.

Thank you, although I might not stick around long. Given the reasons I left have not been resolved.
Nice to see you though, even when I do not agree with you have well thought out stances.

Well hopefully you stick around.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Israel talks about Hamas' human shields but you kind of have to wonder what those settlements are about. Think about it, how does Israel keep getting away with annexing more of the West Bank? If they occupied it with soldiers, those are legitimate targets, but build settlements and fill them with families and babies, then Palestine either has to accept the annexation or attack the settlements which makes them "terrorists".

Well according to Hamas, Tel Aviv is a illegal settlement. One issue here is while many in the international community want to stick to the pre 1967 Green Line (under which a Palestinian Arab state did not exist, before 1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt Gaza) neither all Israeli nor all Palestinians have accepted that temporary ceasefire line as the permanent border.

Hamas is not targeting those settlements. Rather targeting areas the vast majority of the world accept as part of Israel.
Partly this is because Hamas does not really have much capability to hit those settlements, but partially because to Hamas all Israelis cities are illegal settlements.

I'm pretty sure everyone except Israel has accepted the 67 borders actually. Hamas has on numerous occasions said they'd accept them, the PLO afaik has long spoken in support of them, they're the de jure international borders etc etc.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Well according to Hamas, Tel Aviv is a illegal settlement. One issue here is while many in the international community want to stick to the pre 1967 Green Line (under which a Palestinian Arab state did not exist, before 1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt Gaza) neither all Israeli nor all Palestinians have accepted that temporary ceasefire line as the permanent border.

Hamas is not targeting those settlements. Rather targeting areas the vast majority of the world accept as part of Israel.
Partly this is because Hamas does not really have much capability to hit those settlements, but partially because to Hamas all Israelis cities are illegal settlements.

I'm pretty sure everyone except Israel has accept the 67 borders actually. Hamas has on numerous occasions said they'd accept them, the PLO afaik has long spoken in support of them, they're the de jure international borders etc etc.

I wouldn't trust hamas. Those guys really are racist to Jews.

[South Americanastan]

Israel talks about Hamas' human shields but you kind of have to wonder what those settlements are about. Think about it, how does Israel keep getting away with annexing more of the West Bank? If they occupied it with soldiers, those are legitimate targets, but build settlements and fill them with families and babies, then Palestine either has to accept the annexation or attack the settlements which makes them "terrorists".

Well according to Hamas, Tel Aviv is a illegal settlement. One issue here is while many in the international community want to stick to the pre 1967 Green Line (under which a Palestinian Arab state did not exist, before 1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt Gaza) neither all Israeli nor all Palestinians have accepted that temporary ceasefire line as the permanent border.

Hamas is not targeting those settlements. Rather targeting areas the vast majority of the world accept as part of Israel.
Partly this is because Hamas does not really have much capability to hit those settlements, but partially because to Hamas all Israelis cities are illegal settlements.

Isn't Tel Aviv in Israeli territory in literally every border that has ever existed since Israel's independence? Why does Hamas claim it as an illegal settlement?

[Dowaesk]

I'm pretty sure everyone except Israel has accept the 67 borders actually. Hamas has on numerous occasions said they'd accept them, the PLO afaik has long spoken in support of them, they're the de jure international borders etc etc.

I wouldn't trust hamas. Those guys really are racist to Jews.

Agreed. But I'd say if Israel were to actually be fair and give them a chance. They wouldnt be as bad as we'd expect.

In such a case, it'd be ISIS thats gonna be the biggest nuisance. I bet you that these guys will pick up a Hamas flag and blow some place up and in such a case Israel will attack Hamas. ISIS has admitted that they would do so, if Hamas agreed to peace. And it wouldnt be the first time nor the last that ISIS would attack Hamas.

[Dowaesk]

Well according to Hamas, Tel Aviv is a illegal settlement. One issue here is while many in the international community want to stick to the pre 1967 Green Line (under which a Palestinian Arab state did not exist, before 1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt Gaza) neither all Israeli nor all Palestinians have accepted that temporary ceasefire line as the permanent border.

Hamas is not targeting those settlements. Rather targeting areas the vast majority of the world accept as part of Israel.
Partly this is because Hamas does not really have much capability to hit those settlements, but partially because to Hamas all Israelis cities are illegal settlements.

Isn't Tel Aviv in Israeli territory in literally every border that has ever existed since Israel's independence? Why does Hamas claim it as an illegal settlement?

Idk. Maybe since it was once-upon-a-time Palestinian land.

[South Americanastan]

Isn't Tel Aviv in Israeli territory in literally every border that has ever existed since Israel's independence? Why does Hamas claim it as an illegal settlement?

Idk. Maybe since it was once-upon-a-time Palestinian land.

Actually, it was included in Israeli territory in the original UN charter, and Jews had established kingdoms in Canaan (modern day Israel/Palestine) long before Muhammed was even born.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I wouldn't trust hamas. Those guys really are racist to Jews.

Agreed. But I'd say if Israel were to actually be fair and give them a chance. They wouldnt be as bad as we'd expect.

In such a case, it'd be ISIS thats gonna be the biggest nuisance. I bet you that these guys will pick up a Hamas flag and blow some place up and in such a case Israel will attack Hamas. ISIS has admitted that they would do so, if Hamas agreed to peace. And it wouldnt be the first time nor the last that ISIS would attack Hamas.

Yeah I think that while hamas is antisemitic, they could still be dealt with. They're racist more like the way mobsters are to black people while ISIS hates Jews like full on Nazis.

[Novus America]

Well according to Hamas, Tel Aviv is a illegal settlement. One issue here is while many in the international community want to stick to the pre 1967 Green Line (under which a Palestinian Arab state did not exist, before 1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt Gaza) neither all Israeli nor all Palestinians have accepted that temporary ceasefire line as the permanent border.

Hamas is not targeting those settlements. Rather targeting areas the vast majority of the world accept as part of Israel.
Partly this is because Hamas does not really have much capability to hit those settlements, but partially because to Hamas all Israelis cities are illegal settlements.

Isn't Tel Aviv in Israeli territory in literally every border that has ever existed since Israel's independence? Why does Hamas claim it as an illegal settlement?

Hamas claims all the land that was the British Mandate of Palestine as belonging to a Palestinian Arab state. According to Hamas, Israel should not exist at all.

Sure obviously the view of Hamas is not at all in keeping with the view of the vast majority of if the international community but that is the point.

According to the majority of the international community there should be two states based on the pre 1967 Green Line. If the overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinian Arabs agreed, that part, the border would be easily solved.
But obviously that is not the case. They do not.

Any conflict can be easily solved IF you can get both sides to agree. Obviously getting them to agree is the hard part.

[Novus America]

Well according to Hamas, Tel Aviv is a illegal settlement. One issue here is while many in the international community want to stick to the pre 1967 Green Line (under which a Palestinian Arab state did not exist, before 1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank, Egypt Gaza) neither all Israeli nor all Palestinians have accepted that temporary ceasefire line as the permanent border.

Hamas is not targeting those settlements. Rather targeting areas the vast majority of the world accept as part of Israel.
Partly this is because Hamas does not really have much capability to hit those settlements, but partially because to Hamas all Israelis cities are illegal settlements.

I'm pretty sure everyone except Israel has accepted the 67 borders actually. Hamas has on numerous occasions said they'd accept them, the PLO afaik has long spoken in support of them, they're the de jure international borders etc etc.

Hamas has sometimes claimed it would accept the 1967 borders as a temporary matter, it has never dropped its claim to the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine.

The PLO has given support to the 1967 borders but the problem is the PLO has very little credibility even amongst the Palestinian Arab population. The PLO really is controlled by a corrupt clique more intent on keeping power rather than solving anything.

Even the flag of Fatah shows Israel not existing. They cannot change it because it would cause to much controversy to do so. Which show the type of situation we are dealing with.

“A survey taken before the outbreak of fighting in 2014 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy found that 60 percent of Palestinians say the goal of their national movement should be "to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea" compared to just 27 percent who endorse the idea that they should work "to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and achieve a two state solution."”

Polling is difficult and the answers vary greatly based on how the questions are asked, but simply going back to the 1967 borders (well again there was no Palestinian State under them) is not overwhelming popular on either side. If it was it would be not be so difficult to resolve.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution