256 Gazans killed by unlawful Israeli bombardment

[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.

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.

It already did happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict

So it is hard to say something is unlikely when it already has happened and is still ongoing.

[The Reformed American Republic]

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.

Thank you as well, and I wish you luck in your endeavors.

[Dowaesk]

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.

No. Just because the Jews historically had a kingdom (which was short lived btw) there does not give them right to it. Speaking like that, the Romans have a right to many places.

[Dowaesk]

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.

It already did happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict

So it is hard to say something is unlikely when it already has happened and is still ongoing.

Wasnt exactly a civil war, but I get what you are saying.

[Diarcesia]

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.

No. Just because the Jews historically had a kingdom there does not give them right to it. Speaking like that, the Romans have a right to many places.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind the bolded part.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

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.

The Palestinians existed before Mohammed. You may be surprised what they were once called.

[Kowani]

Israeli police announce that they intend to arrest & charge another 500 Palestinian citizens.

[South Americanastan]

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.

No. Just because the Jews historically had a kingdom (which was short lived btw) there does not give them right to it. Speaking like that, the Romans have a right to many places.

I'm not just talking about the unified kingdom, I'm talking about the tribes before it. The Jews are the original occupiers of this land, and have been since ancient times

[Diarcesia]

No. Just because the Jews historically had a kingdom (which was short lived btw) there does not give them right to it. Speaking like that, the Romans have a right to many places.

I'm not just talking about the unified kingdom, I'm talking about the tribes before it. The Jews are the original occupiers of this land, and have been since ancient times

*sad Canaanite noises*

Or maybe they didn't count because they're filthy pagans who are not chosen by God?

[Saiwania]

No. Just because the Jews historically had a kingdom (which was short lived btw) there does not give them right to it. Speaking like that, the Romans have a right to many places.

The Jews had a kingdom there historically which is why they have a claim to the land in question. The reason why their claim is legitimate is mainly because they won the war in 1948, and in 1956, 1968, and 1972. If Israel lost a war to a bad enough extent that they lose all their territory, then I'd consider their claim illegitimate.

[South Americanastan]

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.

No. Just because the Jews historically had a kingdom (which was short lived btw) there does not give them right to it. Speaking like that, the Romans have a right to many places.

In all reality, they'd probably do a better job of controlling Syria and North Africa than Syria and North Africa could.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Hamas rockets are just as accurate as when they first started firing, as in not at all. The Iron dome does stop most of the rockets that are launched but the best we can work out from the data we have is that honestly the Hamas rockets are to inaccurate to be considered an existential threat to Israel even when you don't take into account the Iron Dome.

A threat doesn't have to be existential to illicit a response. That would be silly. The existential threat to an individuals life could easily justify a response.

[South Americanastan]

I'm not just talking about the unified kingdom, I'm talking about the tribes before it. The Jews are the original occupiers of this land, and have been since ancient times

*sad Canaanite noises*

Or maybe they didn't count because they're filthy pagans who are not chosen by God?

I was talking about the Canaanites when I said "tribes"

[Novus America]

It already did happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict

So it is hard to say something is unlikely when it already has happened and is still ongoing.

Wasnt exactly a civil war, but I get what you are saying.

Sure seems like one to me, given Hamas and the Fatah dominated PLO fought a battles, killed each other’s forces and now there are effectively two different governments claiming to control the same land. Regardless of what you call it, it makes resolution of the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict even more unlikely.

Resolution would require both sides to come to an agreement but the Palestinian Arabs cannot even come to an agreement on who actually is the real government.

Of course the utter political dysfunction in Israel is not helping matters either.

Both sides have to much INTERNAL disagreement to agree, they first have to reach some level of internal agreement before they can reach some external agreement with the other side.

[Diarcesia]

Hamas rockets are just as accurate as when they first started firing, as in not at all. The Iron dome does stop most of the rockets that are launched but the best we can work out from the data we have is that honestly the Hamas rockets are to inaccurate to be considered an existential threat to Israel even when you don't take into account the Iron Dome.

A threat doesn't have to be existential to illicit a response. That would be silly. The existential threat to an individuals life could easily justify a response.

Hamas considers Israel's existence to be illegitimate, and would use any justification to launch rockets in Israel's general direction. Presently not an existential threat. Only a nuisance with a side dish of civilian deaths.

[Greater Miami Shores]

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?

They don't want two separate states, an Israeli Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian state, they want all of Palestine.

[Greater Miami Shores]

A threat doesn't have to be existential to illicit a response. That would be silly. The existential threat to an individuals life could easily justify a response.

Hamas considers Israel's existence to be illegitimate, and would use any justification to launch rockets in Israel's general direction. Presently not an existential threat. Only a nuisance with a side dish of civilian deaths.

Great Post Diarcesia - Hamas considers Israel's existence to be illegitimate, and would use any justification to launch rockets in Israel's general direction.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Wasnt exactly a civil war, but I get what you are saying.

Sure seems like one to me, given Hamas and the Fatah dominated PLO fought a battles, killed each other’s forces and now there are effectively two different governments claiming to control the same land. Regardless of what you call it, it makes resolution of the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict even more unlikely.

Resolution would require both sides to come to an agreement but the Palestinian Arabs cannot even come to an agreement on who actually is the real government.

Of course the utter political dysfunction in Israel is not helping matters either.

Both sides have to much INTERNAL disagreement to agree, they first have to reach some level of internal agreement before they can reach some external agreement with the other side.

It doesn't help that Gaza and West Bank are geographically separate. It makes it all too easy for different governments to take hold in either.

[Saiwania]

They don't want two separate states, an Israeli state and an Arab Palestinian state, they want all of Palestine.

If Hamas doesn't have the leverage to be making such a demand and aren't likely to ever get the outcome they want, they may as well give that up and settle for what can be extracted from Israeli side. If they're too impertinent, the involved factions that have a stake will be more inclined to ignore them if not back deposing Hamas' control over Gaza.

[Novus America]

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.

The Palestinians existed before Mohammed. You may be surprised what they were once called.

While the Palestinian Arabs do sometimes claim descent from the ancient Philistines, and have some pre Arab colonization/conquest genetics mixed with those of the medieval Arabian colonists, such claims are in conflict with the Arab Nationalism and Islamism that are the dominant political currents and limit political viability of trying to reclaim a pre Islamic, pre Arab identity.

So how much the are a continuation of pre Arab colonization society and culture versus a product of the colonization is debatable.

But it really does not matter so much. Trying to reverse borders is not really viable, at some point you have to accept the facts on the ground. The simple fact is both the Israelis and Arab Palestinians both live on the land of the former Mandate of Palestine, most were born there, and neither side will just peacefully agree to being eliminated from the land. Nor should they.

The issue is trying to get a comprehensive agreement on how to divide the territory and work out the issues involving the “right of return” and property rights, meet the other side’s security concerns and so on.

Both sides are riven by so much internal disagreement that they cannot even internally decide how to resolve these issues, let alone decide how externally agree with the other side.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The Palestinians existed before Mohammed. You may be surprised what they were once called.

While the Palestinian Arabs do sometimes claim descent from the ancient Philistines, and have some pre Arab colonization/conquest genetics mixed with those of the medieval Arabian colonists, such claims are in conflict with the Arab Nationalism and Islamism that are the dominant political currents and limit political viability of trying to reclaim a pre Islamic, pre Arab identity.

So how much the are a continuation of pre Arab colonization society and culture versus a product of the colonization is debatable.

But it really does not matter so much. Trying to reverse borders is not really viable, at some point you have to accept the facts on the ground. The simple fact is both the Israelis and Arab Palestinians both live on the land of the former Mandate of Palestine, most were born there, and neither side will just peacefully agree to being eliminated from the land. Nor should they.

The issue is trying to get a comprehensive agreement on how to divide the territory and work out the issues involving the “right of return” and property rights, meet the other side’s security concerns and so on.

Both sides are riven by so much internal disagreement that they cannot even internally decide how to resolve these issues, let alone decide how externally agree with the other side.

Not Philistines. And my point wasn't "destroy Israel, Palestine to the ocean."

[Novus America]

Sure seems like one to me, given Hamas and the Fatah dominated PLO fought a battles, killed each other’s forces and now there are effectively two different governments claiming to control the same land. Regardless of what you call it, it makes resolution of the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict even more unlikely.

Resolution would require both sides to come to an agreement but the Palestinian Arabs cannot even come to an agreement on who actually is the real government.

Of course the utter political dysfunction in Israel is not helping matters either.

Both sides have to much INTERNAL disagreement to agree, they first have to reach some level of internal agreement before they can reach some external agreement with the other side.

It doesn't help that Gaza and West Bank are geographically separate. It makes it all too easy for different governments to take hold in either.

Very true. Something somewhat similar happened to Pakistan in 1971. Although obviously there were many major differences, there is certainly some significant similarities.

It is hard to enforce rule over two geographically separate territories. It is questionable whether a two state solution is viable or if there would need to be separate states in Gaza vs the West Bank, perhaps in some sort of confederal or federal arrangement.

[Novus America]

While the Palestinian Arabs do sometimes claim descent from the ancient Philistines, and have some pre Arab colonization/conquest genetics mixed with those of the medieval Arabian colonists, such claims are in conflict with the Arab Nationalism and Islamism that are the dominant political currents and limit political viability of trying to reclaim a pre Islamic, pre Arab identity.

So how much the are a continuation of pre Arab colonization society and culture versus a product of the colonization is debatable.

But it really does not matter so much. Trying to reverse borders is not really viable, at some point you have to accept the facts on the ground. The simple fact is both the Israelis and Arab Palestinians both live on the land of the former Mandate of Palestine, most were born there, and neither side will just peacefully agree to being eliminated from the land. Nor should they.

The issue is trying to get a comprehensive agreement on how to divide the territory and work out the issues involving the “right of return” and property rights, meet the other side’s security concerns and so on.

Both sides are riven by so much internal disagreement that they cannot even internally decide how to resolve these issues, let alone decide how externally agree with the other side.

Not Philistines. And my point wasn't "destroy Israel, Palestine to the ocean."

Well true, it is not just the Philistines, some Palestinian Nationalists claim to be the descendants and the continuation of all historical peoples in the land, even the Jews, but that is a very debatable argument.

I apologize if I came off that way, I know you are not saying that. I am not accusing you of doing so. My fault for not being more clear.

My point is merely that who historically controlled what is largely academic, and relatively inconsequential, ultimately we have to work within the current realities on the ground if we are to find a solution.

Although to be frank I do not think this will be solved. The current mess is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Actually resolving in a way acceptable to the overwhelming majority of both groups is not really in the cards unfortunately.

[Wallenburg]

It's not "fucking up", that was the entire objective. The IDF did not conduct their strikes with the intention of doing any significant damage to Hamas, just to the civilians of Gaza.

The IDF's objective is not to harm civilians. It is to destroy Hamas.

If the IDF wanted to destroy Hamas, it could have easily done so in the last 43 years. No, it's objective is to murder and terrorize civilians, which is why that's what they do instead of destroying Hamas.

The problem is, they have no way of telling if someone's part of Hamas or not.

If you can't tell if someone is or isn't a civilian noncombatant, you are obligated not to attack them under international law.

Most countries would take a more defensive stance in this situation. The IDF decided to instead just bomb everything.

That's called terrorism.

[South Americanastan]

The IDF's objective is not to harm civilians. It is to destroy Hamas.

If the IDF wanted to destroy Hamas, it could have easily done so in the last 43 years. No, it's objective is to murder and terrorize civilians, which is why that's what they do instead of destroying Hamas.

The problem is, they have no way of telling if someone's part of Hamas or not.

If you can't tell if someone is or isn't a civilian noncombatant, you are obligated not to attack them under international law.

Most countries would take a more defensive stance in this situation. The IDF decided to instead just bomb everything.

That's called terrorism.

The US' objective in the Vietnam war was to destroy North Vietnam or at least defend the south. They could not due to guerrilla tactics, the same kind of guerrilla tactics Hamas uses. The US killed civies, but were never prosecuted. That's not terrorism. Terrorism is an act intentionally meant to harm civilians. The IDF's actions are meant to destroy Hamas, but are reckless in terms of collateral damage.