Looks like a new Gaza war has started

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rania, the Palestinian-born Queen of Jordan, speaks out:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/24/middleeast/queen-rania-jordan-amanpour-interview-intl/index.html

Hey Rania -- why not give the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan citizenship?

They are treated like second class citizens, without the full rights of other Jordanians.

Terrible.

Hey Bibi/Israel, why not give back Palestinian land you've stolen?

Oh, do you mean like Israel tried to do in 2000 with the two-state deal and 95% of 1967 borders? And financial reparations?

Let's discuss those brand new settlements in the West Bank......

Great! If Arafat had accepted the deal, those brand new settlements would not exist and that's a fact. Palestine would be 23 years old.

So the settlers currently stealing Palestinian land and killing Palestinians are doing so because of Arafat?

Here is an article that attempts to capture the failures of each side in the Oslo Accords.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/why-the-oslo-accords-failed/

The squatters can do that because they are protected by a militarized state that is given cover by an even larger militarized state.

I would not have taken the “great deal” if I were Palestinian. It totally ignored the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. Why would they just give that up? That was a bad deal.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the Palestinians HAD a chance for peace.

Their leadership rejected it and decided to continue their wars against Israel and its people.

They attack civilians. They lose. It sucks. Then they complain that they're suffering.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

You sure that rejecting peace and a state of their own (albeit imperfect) was the prudent choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-posting with fixed link.

Israel bombed a Christian church that dates back to the 12th century, killing relatives of former MI rep Justin Amash.

They did not target the church itself.

Right, they targeted an adjacent building where Christians, including former rep. Amash's relatives, were sheltering, killing them. And they knew it would damage the historic church.

There was a Hamas command center next to the church. Would your recommendation be that Israel just leave the command center be?

Former rep. Amash's relatives were not members of Hamas. They didn't need to die. You're the king of false dilemmas.

I’m not sure you’re clear on what collateral damage is.

Collateral damage is warfare propaganda by countries that are not held accountable.

I guess Christian lives don't matter. They're just "collateral damage".

Terming something as collateral damage doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter.

They didn't matter enough to prevent the primary damage from taking place. So, ultimately, it does mean their lives don't matter. Everything and everyone else must take a backseat to Israel's blood revenge.

You do realize this happens in every war, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/stopantisemites/status/1716994962703724728?s=46

GW students projected “Glory to our martyrs” onto a building.

Is this what you all term simply being pro-Palestinian people?

In Arab/Muslim culture, any victim of a murder is considered a martyr. This doesn’t necessarily glorify militants. The martyrs are likely dead civilians. Dumb because they should know not everyone understands that.

Because these slogans are totally just about mourning civilians:

Glory to our martyrs
Free Palestine From the river to the sea
Divestment from Zionist genocide now

You also know that jihadist terrorist groups consistently use martyr language to talk about their fighters who die.

Can you think of a country that doesn't glorify soldiers killed in battle?

And, it is totally another to glorify the terrorists who attacked innocent civilians and slaughtered them - including infants, women and toddlers.
That is what we are seeing around the world and sadly, right here in the US.

+1000

+ a million.

How exactly does one “free Palestine From River to Sea”?

Sickening.

How does it threaten you to imagine Palestinians being free?

Do you really feel the need subject an entire population to a prison camp so you can feel safe? Do you need to bomb hospitals and schools to feel safe? How many people must die in the fight to deny basic human rights for Palestinians?

Tell us what “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” means in practice.

a single state that doesnt promote or prefer any religion over another... kind of like the one DC is the capital of. There are a lot of multiethnic, multi religious States in the world. My parents came here from a former democracy that became an "islamic republic"- no-one living in an 'insert-name of religion here' state is freer or safer or better off b/c of that. Separation of religion and government is ALWAYS a liberating and positive thing, religious republics are inherently backward and inherently illiberal. Jews and Christians and Muslims need to establish a secular state in that area and live with ppl who believe differently than them, just like we manage to do in Canada and here. Our system is superior to others,The first amendment to the US constitution is an act of brilliance and is superior to other ways of life, it is ok to admit that and other countries should copy it.

Oh sweet summer child.

You think a “Palestine will be free” slogan is meant to be a call for a multiethnic democracy?

Palestine has always been multiethnic. It is Israel and Zionism that introduced ethnic theocracy into the MidEast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an American taxpayer with no real interest in how the problem is resolved, I feel used by Israel. I feel like they have so abused their position of power and authority (and my money) and are now attempting to drag my country and our soldiers into this war.

All the relentless comparisons to ISIS and Nazis are hyperbolic. There is no existential threat to Israel or the Jewish people. There does seem to be an existential threat to the Palestinian people.

I am for pulling out of the MidEast permanently. Let them solve their problems without any more US money or interference.

You are wrong about that. If the US pulled support of Israel, it would be the end of Israel.

It is past time the US stopped shielding Israel from its war crimes.

If Israel needs to commit a genocide to exit, then maybe the Israel shouldn’t exist. The third reich is gone, but Germans are thriving. Israel could end and Jews could live in a new democracy that doesn’t require keeping Palestinians in a concentration camp or killing them en masse.

I’m the PP who made the original comment as a US taxpayer. I am not opposed at all to Israel existing. I think there’s probably some value to the US in its existence.

But I am opposed to being dragged into an endless abyss of war because a madman war criminal (Netanyahu) can blow the region to smithereens.

No. Thank you.

I agree with you and I believe Biden is on the right track but the situation is diplomatically very complex. We can’t just walk away. It would be a disaster. Watch closely. The alternative (something like Trump) would be worse—you think things are bad today???

This is just a scare tactic used by Israel for decades. There is no need to walk away, only a change in policy and tone that is consistent with our interests and values, no blank check, no unconditional support, no warm embraces of corrupt right-wing warmongers. At the end of the day there are at least half a dozen countries in the region that are of more strategic value to the US than Israel.

Diplomatically very complex = Aggressive, militarized country with nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rania, the Palestinian-born Queen of Jordan, speaks out:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/24/middleeast/queen-rania-jordan-amanpour-interview-intl/index.html

Hey Rania -- why not give the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan citizenship?

They are treated like second class citizens, without the full rights of other Jordanians.

Terrible.

Hey Bibi/Israel, why not give back Palestinian land you've stolen?

Oh, do you mean like Israel tried to do in 2000 with the two-state deal and 95% of 1967 borders? And financial reparations?

Let's discuss those brand new settlements in the West Bank......

Great! If Arafat had accepted the deal, those brand new settlements would not exist and that's a fact. Palestine would be 23 years old.

So the settlers currently stealing Palestinian land and killing Palestinians are doing so because of Arafat?

Here is an article that attempts to capture the failures of each side in the Oslo Accords.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/why-the-oslo-accords-failed/

The squatters can do that because they are protected by a militarized state that is given cover by an even larger militarized state.

I would not have taken the “great deal” if I were Palestinian. It totally ignored the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. Why would they just give that up? That was a bad deal.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the Palestinians HAD a chance for peace.

Their leadership rejected it and decided to continue their wars against Israel and its people.

They attack civilians. They lose. It sucks. Then they complain that they're suffering.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

You sure that rejecting peace and a state of their own (albeit imperfect) was the prudent choice?

Anyone has a chance for peace if they keep their mouth shut. I mean there is peace in prisons with armed guards.

The 2000 deal said Israel can bring their army into the West Bank at any time, it would control the airspace, and it would have the right to shut down the roads and links between Palestinian bantoustans at any time. Sweet deal, dunno why anyone would reject it. Oh, also they wanted to annex 9% of the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d like the Pope to visit. People need to start talking about peace, not vengeance.

Do you really think Jews or Muslims care about the Pope?

What is he gonna do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rania, the Palestinian-born Queen of Jordan, speaks out:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/24/middleeast/queen-rania-jordan-amanpour-interview-intl/index.html

Hey Rania -- why not give the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan citizenship?

They are treated like second class citizens, without the full rights of other Jordanians.

Terrible.

Hey Bibi/Israel, why not give back Palestinian land you've stolen?

Oh, do you mean like Israel tried to do in 2000 with the two-state deal and 95% of 1967 borders? And financial reparations?

Let's discuss those brand new settlements in the West Bank......

Great! If Arafat had accepted the deal, those brand new settlements would not exist and that's a fact. Palestine would be 23 years old.

So the settlers currently stealing Palestinian land and killing Palestinians are doing so because of Arafat?

Here is an article that attempts to capture the failures of each side in the Oslo Accords.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/why-the-oslo-accords-failed/

The squatters can do that because they are protected by a militarized state that is given cover by an even larger militarized state.

I would not have taken the “great deal” if I were Palestinian. It totally ignored the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. Why would they just give that up? That was a bad deal.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the Palestinians HAD a chance for peace.

Their leadership rejected it and decided to continue their wars against Israel and its people.

They attack civilians. They lose. It sucks. Then they complain that they're suffering.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

You sure that rejecting peace and a state of their own (albeit imperfect) was the prudent choice?

It isn’t my or your choice to make. They were unwilling to accept the denial of their legal rights.

What is my choice as an American is whether I continue to abet illegal settlements of Palestinian land and siege of civilians. I vote no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/stopantisemites/status/1716994962703724728?s=46

GW students projected “Glory to our martyrs” onto a building.

Is this what you all term simply being pro-Palestinian people?

In Arab/Muslim culture, any victim of a murder is considered a martyr. This doesn’t necessarily glorify militants. The martyrs are likely dead civilians. Dumb because they should know not everyone understands that.

Because these slogans are totally just about mourning civilians:

Glory to our martyrs
Free Palestine From the river to the sea
Divestment from Zionist genocide now

You also know that jihadist terrorist groups consistently use martyr language to talk about their fighters who die.

Can you think of a country that doesn't glorify soldiers killed in battle?

And, it is totally another to glorify the terrorists who attacked innocent civilians and slaughtered them - including infants, women and toddlers.
That is what we are seeing around the world and sadly, right here in the US.

+1000

+ a million.

How exactly does one “free Palestine From River to Sea”?

Sickening.

How does it threaten you to imagine Palestinians being free?

Do you really feel the need subject an entire population to a prison camp so you can feel safe? Do you need to bomb hospitals and schools to feel safe? How many people must die in the fight to deny basic human rights for Palestinians?

Tell us what “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” means in practice.

a single state that doesnt promote or prefer any religion over another... kind of like the one DC is the capital of. There are a lot of multiethnic, multi religious States in the world. My parents came here from a former democracy that became an "islamic republic"- no-one living in an 'insert-name of religion here' state is freer or safer or better off b/c of that. Separation of religion and government is ALWAYS a liberating and positive thing, religious republics are inherently backward and inherently illiberal. Jews and Christians and Muslims need to establish a secular state in that area and live with ppl who believe differently than them, just like we manage to do in Canada and here. Our system is superior to others,The first amendment to the US constitution is an act of brilliance and is superior to other ways of life, it is ok to admit that and other countries should copy it.

Oh sweet summer child.

You think a “Palestine will be free” slogan is meant to be a call for a multiethnic democracy?

Palestine has always been multiethnic. It is Israel and Zionism that introduced ethnic theocracy into the MidEast.

WTAF are you praddling on about?

First of all, the Middle East had plenty of theocracies before Israel.

Second, Israel is not a theocracy. It’s a unitary parliamentary republic.

Third, Israel is 20% Arab, 75% Jewish, and 5% other groups.

Palestine is:

West Bank: 70% Arab and 28% Jewish

Gaza: 98% Arab

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rania, the Palestinian-born Queen of Jordan, speaks out:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/24/middleeast/queen-rania-jordan-amanpour-interview-intl/index.html

Hey Rania -- why not give the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan citizenship?

They are treated like second class citizens, without the full rights of other Jordanians.

Terrible.

Hey Bibi/Israel, why not give back Palestinian land you've stolen?

Oh, do you mean like Israel tried to do in 2000 with the two-state deal and 95% of 1967 borders? And financial reparations?

Let's discuss those brand new settlements in the West Bank......

Great! If Arafat had accepted the deal, those brand new settlements would not exist and that's a fact. Palestine would be 23 years old.

So the settlers currently stealing Palestinian land and killing Palestinians are doing so because of Arafat?

Here is an article that attempts to capture the failures of each side in the Oslo Accords.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/why-the-oslo-accords-failed/

The squatters can do that because they are protected by a militarized state that is given cover by an even larger militarized state.

I would not have taken the “great deal” if I were Palestinian. It totally ignored the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. Why would they just give that up? That was a bad deal.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the Palestinians HAD a chance for peace.

Their leadership rejected it and decided to continue their wars against Israel and its people.

They attack civilians. They lose. It sucks. Then they complain that they're suffering.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

You sure that rejecting peace and a state of their own (albeit imperfect) was the prudent choice?

It isn’t my or your choice to make. They were unwilling to accept the denial of their legal rights.

What is my choice as an American is whether I continue to abet illegal settlements of Palestinian land and siege of civilians. I vote no.

Arafat could’ve countered. The deal involved 95% of the 1967 borders, but if he didn’t like some of the terms, he could’ve proposed something else. He didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-posting with fixed link.

Israel bombed a Christian church that dates back to the 12th century, killing relatives of former MI rep Justin Amash.

They did not target the church itself.

Right, they targeted an adjacent building where Christians, including former rep. Amash's relatives, were sheltering, killing them. And they knew it would damage the historic church.

There was a Hamas command center next to the church. Would your recommendation be that Israel just leave the command center be?

Former rep. Amash's relatives were not members of Hamas. They didn't need to die. You're the king of false dilemmas.

I’m not sure you’re clear on what collateral damage is.

Collateral damage is warfare propaganda by countries that are not held accountable.

I guess Christian lives don't matter. They're just "collateral damage".

Terming something as collateral damage doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter.

They didn't matter enough to prevent the primary damage from taking place. So, ultimately, it does mean their lives don't matter. Everything and everyone else must take a backseat to Israel's blood revenge.

You do realize this happens in every war, right?

When it does, it's considered a war crime. And this was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d like the Pope to visit. People need to start talking about peace, not vengeance.

Do you really think Jews or Muslims care about the Pope?

What is he gonna do?

When Pope John Paul II visited Bethlehem, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians came to see him. I don’t know about Jews, but Muslims and Christians revere and respect the Pope as the leader of a large percentage of Christians globally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re-posting with fixed link.

Israel bombed a Christian church that dates back to the 12th century, killing relatives of former MI rep Justin Amash.

They did not target the church itself.

Right, they targeted an adjacent building where Christians, including former rep. Amash's relatives, were sheltering, killing them. And they knew it would damage the historic church.

There was a Hamas command center next to the church. Would your recommendation be that Israel just leave the command center be?

Former rep. Amash's relatives were not members of Hamas. They didn't need to die. You're the king of false dilemmas.

I’m not sure you’re clear on what collateral damage is.

Collateral damage is warfare propaganda by countries that are not held accountable.

I guess Christian lives don't matter. They're just "collateral damage".

Terming something as collateral damage doesn’t mean their lives don’t matter.

They didn't matter enough to prevent the primary damage from taking place. So, ultimately, it does mean their lives don't matter. Everything and everyone else must take a backseat to Israel's blood revenge.

You do realize this happens in every war, right?

When it does, it's considered a war crime. And this was.

It’s actually not.

“ Collateral damage is an accepted consequence of warfare. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality.”

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral-damage-innocent-bystanders-war/#:~:text=Collateral%20damage%20is%20an%20accepted,of%20the%20principle%20of%20proportionality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the UN secretary speaks neutrally with a huge emphasis on Israels rights, Israel goes bonkers and asks for his resignation and labels him a terrorist apologist. That’s the world we live in

Fake news.

Here for you: Israel was outraged by Guterres’s comments. UN envoy Gilad Erdan called them “shocking,” and demanded that the secretary general resign. Foreign Minister Eli Cohen canceled a meeting with Guterres, and Minister Benny Gantz labeled the UN chief a “terror apologist.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-livid-after-un-chief-says-hamas-attacks-did-not-occur-in-vacuum/amp/

That's a popular war tactic of Israel and it's supporters in the US. Destroy the reputation and livelihood of anyone speaking out against savagery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rania, the Palestinian-born Queen of Jordan, speaks out:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/24/middleeast/queen-rania-jordan-amanpour-interview-intl/index.html

Hey Rania -- why not give the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in refugee camps in Jordan citizenship?

They are treated like second class citizens, without the full rights of other Jordanians.

Terrible.

Hey Bibi/Israel, why not give back Palestinian land you've stolen?

Oh, do you mean like Israel tried to do in 2000 with the two-state deal and 95% of 1967 borders? And financial reparations?

Let's discuss those brand new settlements in the West Bank......

Great! If Arafat had accepted the deal, those brand new settlements would not exist and that's a fact. Palestine would be 23 years old.

So the settlers currently stealing Palestinian land and killing Palestinians are doing so because of Arafat?

Here is an article that attempts to capture the failures of each side in the Oslo Accords.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/why-the-oslo-accords-failed/

The squatters can do that because they are protected by a militarized state that is given cover by an even larger militarized state.

I would not have taken the “great deal” if I were Palestinian. It totally ignored the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. Why would they just give that up? That was a bad deal.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the Palestinians HAD a chance for peace.

Their leadership rejected it and decided to continue their wars against Israel and its people.

They attack civilians. They lose. It sucks. Then they complain that they're suffering.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

You sure that rejecting peace and a state of their own (albeit imperfect) was the prudent choice?

It isn’t my or your choice to make. They were unwilling to accept the denial of their legal rights.

What is my choice as an American is whether I continue to abet illegal settlements of Palestinian land and siege of civilians. I vote no.

Arafat could’ve countered. The deal involved 95% of the 1967 borders, but if he didn’t like some of the terms, he could’ve proposed something else. He didn’t.

Incorrect. The offers are a matter of public record. You can go read what was offered instead of just reciting Israeli propaganda.

[Anonymous]

It’s a very scary time to be a Jewish student on many college campuses. And antisemitism is up almost 400 percent from this time last year, per ADL.