We are researching this topic, we want to make our our conclusions.
Your point is that we should differentiate whqt they say from that they do.
Thanks for your input, we will work on that
Discussion
My point is what they do matters more than what they say. What they say is irrelevant. If I murder your family while I profess my desire for peace, my words mean nothing.
Israel murders thousands of Palestinians and kick them our of their property via IDF an US taxpayer money and them claim to be a democracy and refuse to acknowledge it's apertheid. They Claim to be the most moral army of the world.
Yes, fuck words!!
Are they supposed to let the Palestinians rape, torture and murder them out of existence?
Read Exodus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. 4 000 years ago Israeli tribe came and wipe out the whole Caanites and other people.
All that they have been built was built upon bloodshed.
4000 years ago there wasn't even #Islam or #Christianity, but there were Israeli already doing mass massacres
No, Israel has to fight back when attacked. I support Israel defending itself.
But fighting back by cutting off their water supply? I understand cutting off fuel. I even understand stopping aid temporarily (due to weapons smuggling). But cutting off their water when half of them are kids and then they drink ocean water and get sick... that is not acceptable. Nor is bombing mostly civilian areas to kill a few Hamas members. They need to wait for a clear shot, or storm the place and take out the terrorists without killing the civilians.
On a totally different topic, with IDF assistance Israelis have been slowly taking Palestinian land in the West Bank. Or, maybe that is not completely unrelated.
I agree, cutting off the water is too extreme. The bombing bit is debatable, Hamas deliberately surrounds themselves with civilians. They are responsible for those deaths more than the Israelis are. It's a bit like challenging another dude to a fight and then hiding behind your girlfriend or a child when he starts throwing punches at you.
Hamas aren't a group of isolated terrorists. They are the government of Gaza. The vast majority of people in Gaza support their actions. It's not as clear cut between civilians and the baddies.
Hamas was voted in in 2006 or something like that. Only 22% of people alive now (I think) were part of that vote, so they should probably have another one. They may have changed their minds. At the time of the original vote, there is evidence Israeli leaders wanted Hamas to win so they could treat them militarily instead of needing to continue the peace process, and starved Fatah of campaign funds... but maybe that's just what some idiot said. Surely many of them still support violence.
In any case, Israel has legitimate security concerns. But so does Gaza. So IMHO Israel should not be the one enforcing the peace, a third party should step in and do it. And I know the U.N. is a dumpster fire, but it is all the world has, even Putin still works with it because there is no alternative. So maybe a U.N. peacekeeping force could be utilized. Israel would not agree, so it would have to be forced upon them.
I support Israel's right to exist, but only if they support Palestine's right to exist. They've had a long time to work that out, and when pressed they just point to the one part of the negotiations where Arafat rejected a bad deal, as though that was the end of all possible negotiations. At some point someone has to call it full-time on this delaying and revoke recognition of Israel as a state. Yes, that's hardball, but they don't respond to anything other.
do you know that peacekeepers don't stop whoever wants to fight?
they just separate the parties and watch to avoid unintentional scalation, accidents, etc.
At most, they avoid no-warning attacks and "the other side started shooting" blame wars because the parties are supposed to ask them to leave before attacking.
Before the 1967 war, Egypt asked the peacekepers to leave, and they left.
Last week, peacekeepers on Lebanon-Israel border stopped patrols and returned to their bases on their own volition - they are not going to work if one of the parties want to start shooting.
last month, russian peacekeepers did not fight Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh is gone for Armenia.
why would soldiers from 3rd countries accept to die?
if you mean having UN soldiers controlling Gaza, that is not peacekeeping, that is a territorial mandate, which is costlier and riskier. Who wants to run a neo-colony, have their own soldiers hunt terrorists, besides being blamed by every adminstrative or security trouble? And who is going to convince Hamas to leave?
I understand the curring of water/energy. Israel declared war.
Sending freebies to enemy territory in war is... in principle... treason. I would not do it before lawyering up strongly.
but, exchanging something for something, like energy for hostages... that is negociation.
Also, if they really want to invade soon, water and energy would help the enemy to prepare himself.
Anyway, it appears they returned water to south gaza - which they said would not be invaded