To wonder how anyone thought what was happening in Gaza was ok?

I have not stated any falsehoods and I cannot understand how what I have said is offensive. If I have genuinely got a claim wrong then I would of course withdraw it. Details would be useful. But I feel over many posts Ive set out my position, which in brief summary is that:

1. Israel has a right to exist
2. Arabs have a claim to the land too, so some solution must be made to accommodate both peoples
3. The Arabs have rejected statehood many times
4. Anti-Semitism is rife in the Palestinian Territories and this is an impediment to peace
5. Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organisation whom it is impossible to peacefully co-exist with
6. Civilian casualties are a terrible but unavoidable cost of war
7. Criticisms of Israel must be proportionate and accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing are clearly not proportionate

You may disagree with that. But accusing me of simply being offensive or in thrall to Israeli propaganda is not a reasonable position to hold in this argument.

The current government isn't Israel. I doubt they'll be there in a year, if that.

Maybe it's obvious because the current government's leadership have said that they won't?

Hamas need to go. So do Netanyahu and his colleagues. Ideally all to various courts to be tried for their crimes.

Why is it obvious Israel would never accept a two state solution?

They have seven times before.

Although, to be honest, I saw the leader of Hamas go on TV a few weeks ago and say outright that he would use a two state solution to launch a further war on Israel and kill everyone, so I wouldn't judge Israelis if they had lost interest a wee bit!

There's certainly some very vehement new usernames around.

My father ( who suffered under the Nazi occupation) taught me to pick my battles carefully, that some people (for whatever reasons) will never accept undisputed facts as evidence because they can't cope with the truth.
He also taught me critical thinking and to get any information from different sources in order to come to a balanced opinion.
Most importantly he taught to never state my opinion unless it is backed by facts.
I feel that your posts are nothing but a rehashing of falsehood and are, at times, deeply offensive.

@CaterhamReconstituted Maybe the Israeli's definition of "innocent" and "people" is the problem then. From 2010 regarding the murder of Tom Hurndall, his mother stated
"Tom's mother, Jocelyn, today said: "From the moment that Tom was shot, we said it wasn't about the soldier, who is a small part of the machinery, but about the responsibility of the Israeli army and its lack of accountability over civilian killings. To say that the soldier has reformed is to miss the point – the British government needs to hold Israel accountable for its actions.""
Israeli soldier jailed for killing British activist Tom Hurndall released early | Israel | The Guardian

@CaterhamReconstituted I think you may have misunderstood the examples given by @Auvergne63 .

Three Israeli men had escaped after having been taken hostage. The accounts of what happened set out that they calmly and clearly made themselves visible to a military patrol which was not engaged in any firefight or obviously confusing situation. They had white flags. They took steps to show they were unarmed. They announced who they were, in Hebrew. They were shot. One managed to get to some shelter. When he emerged again, again announcing who he was, he was shot. This was not a firefight or a friendly fire combat accident. Three unarmed men were shot. It just happened that they were the 'wrong' unarmed men. It is tragic to think about what they went through and how close they came to safety before being killed by the very people they had hoped would come to help them to safety.

I think maybe access to the internet might be the entire problem.

You may have missed this: but since around 1936 the Palestinian leaderships (although they have changed hands a few times) have been very clear their intent is the deliberate slaughter, by any means available, of Jews.

Most recently, you may have missed when they flew in wearing parachutes and displayed their handiwork over live feed and then went on numerous TV interviews and said they'd do it again and again.

It seems to be working overtime and not just @CaterhamReconstituted it's every thread nearly!

But then killing overseas aid workers whether by accident or design has turned out to be a bit of an own goal so there's bound to be lots of pushback

@Scirocco

Gaza was occupied pre-2005, I struggle to see how people can say it wasn't when there were 21 Israeli settlements there and it was controlled by the IDF. That's pretty much a definition of direct occupation.
Yes, it was, and hasn't been for 18 years. That did not stop the violence did it? It just escalated it by my assessment. Which is incredibly sad as they could easily have built a pretty great place if they'd chosen to.

Even since the withdrawal in 2005, the UN, multiple legal experts and human rights organisations have considered it under occupation because of how it is still controlled and blockaded.
I really don't care what the UN says. The reality is if the blockade had been removed, Hamas would have imported weapons (likely very serious weapons) and would probably have started WWIII or at the very least murdered tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. That is who they are, and what they would do. So if the UN want to blockade gone, they should pull their finger out of their arse and stop enabling a terror state.

In relation to the 'settlements', this isn't a case of people wanting to live as good neighbours. This is people evicting other people at gunpoint, destroying their homes, killing their children.
I completely agree with you - I think these people are vile and should have been stopped. But I also think two things:

1. People forget the West bank is an area of active conflict, and there is some element involved of certain things designed for the national security of Israel.
2. I also think Jews should be able to live in Palestine just as Muslims can live in Israel. I think it's very unhealthy for it to be any other way.

I do not mean by force, or by violence or by bullying - that is disgusting - but Jews and Muslims should both be able to live equally in either place.
.

I am lost for words that anyone who has access to the internet can still vehemently defend the deliberate slaughter, by any means available, of an entire ethnic group and who also rewrites history to suit their narrative.
The Israeli propaganda machine is clearly working.

Another loop. Of course war leads to civilian casualties. But your examples are interesting - clearly then, the killings of these innocent people is not deliberate, if in the confusion and carnage of war Israeli soldiers are shooting at their own side.

Others today have made excellent posts explaining why Israel has serious security concerns which means a two-state solution is not currently viable. These arguments are never engaged with. Instead we just hear buzzwords about “river to the sea” and “illegal occupation” (even though Israel has not occupied Gaza for twenty years). What do you honestly think would happen if Israel withdrew from the West Bank? We know that Hamas are the most popular group there. Can you not see how unacceptable it is for Israel to allow missiles to point at Tel-Aviv and Haifa from the West Bank?

I don’t agree with the behaviour of all the settlers but clearly Israel cannot withdraw from the West Bank right now.

How do you propose the IDF is going to differentiate between civilians and Hamas because so far everyone is fair game to them as it has been demonstrated time after time.
For example, the IDF had trouble identifying 3 Israeli hostages waving a white flag and speaking in Hebrew and more recently 3 identifiable ( the big charity logo on their roof was a big clue) aid workers 'cars, workers who had informed the IDF they were going to be in the area.

What is happening now can never be thought as 'OK'

what will happen next if perhaps an even bigger question. It is clear Israel will never accept a two State solution, and are hell bent on continuing illegal and cruel expansion, from the river to the sea.

And why do you think it would be inevitable?

How does that concern justify occupation, particularly when that occupation pre-dated Hamas?

I thinks it’s pretty obvious that there is a massive risk that the West Bank would just turn into another Gaza I.e. run by a terrorist organisation and from which rockets, missiles and terrorist attacked would be launched. It’s inevitable, really.

@LemonyTicket I've seen Gaza with my own eyes, I've seen what Hamas are. I know what they are. I will shed no tears for them.

Gaza was occupied pre-2005, I struggle to see how people can say it wasn't when there were 21 Israeli settlements there and it was controlled by the IDF. That's pretty much a definition of direct occupation. Even since the withdrawal in 2005, the UN, multiple legal experts and human rights organisations have considered it under occupation because of how it is still controlled and blockaded.

In relation to the 'settlements', this isn't a case of people wanting to live as good neighbours. This is people evicting other people at gunpoint, destroying their homes, killing their children. This is armed men threatening people, controlling where people walk, drive, open windows. I think @HeidiInTheBigCity has more first-hand experience of the West Bank than I do, so hopefully she may be able to come and explain to you a bit more about how occupation is not the same as seeking to live side-by-side.

it is essentially a danger to it's neighbours.
That is incredibly offensive and you are whitewashing Israel's role completely.

I’m also interested to know how this is offensive, given it is run by Hamas, a terrorist organisation.

It's a separate topic to me as that's not what this war is about. Hamas' intention, if they won this war they started is not "liberation" of the West Bank. It is to take over the West Bank and make that a terrorist state too. They'd kill Fatah or any opponents, just like they did when they took control of Gaza. is that what you want?

Gaza is not occupied. I struggle with how people work the logic of this. What do you think is right? Tell me? Would it be right for Egypt and Israel to remove the blockade from Gaza? Should they allow unlimited weapons to be shipped in from Iran? Perhaps serious weapons with the capability of taking out hundreds of thousands of people? Do you seriously believe with access to this that they would hesitate for a second to use it?

Can you explain to me how you think that would benefit anyone? There would be a war still, albeit likely a far worse one with a heck of a lot more than 30,000 dead people. Would that be "liberation"? Would it be "justice"? The world was VERY sad when Gaza elected Hamas. Their goals and ideas were well understood, and it was a tragedy that they were elected, but that is what people chose. It was and is simply not possible to give them freedom to murder people. That is not justice.

You seem to not grasp the reality here that Hamas are not good people. They do not have good intentions. There is a reason Egypt has a blockade on them too. They have no intention of giving Palestinian people "freedom". They could do that now, but instead they deny all human and civil rights to their own citizens. They have no intention of making Palestinians prosperous. They could have done that, and instead they feathered the pockets of their own corrupt allies. They have no intention of saving Palestinian lives. They deliberately do all they can to get them killed! It baffles me that people cannot see this.

As for the settlements on the West Bank, I do not agree with Israel settling on land which does not belong to Israel on principle. However, I DO think that as Muslims are allowed to live freely, equally, and safely in Israel that it is a great shame Palestinians refuse the same generosity to Jews. I think populations with no Jews in them are bad for the psyche of people. People must live together, and learn to be better at it.

I also think, as sad as it is, that if the settlements were not there, that the same terrorism and takeover by Hamas may have occurred on the West Bank. The reason Abbas has refused to hold an election for years is because the polls say Hamas would win. So there is an element here of security. There is observably a problem with these places becoming breeding camps for war and terror and that benefits no one. I do not think complete withdrawal worked in Gaza, and it would not work on the West Bank. Something bigger needs to change.

@LemonyTicket how do you explain the 'settlements' and occupation of the West Bank, then? Or how Netanyahu is very proud of having, as he put it, "prevented the creation of a Palestinian state"? Or how about how Gaza was also under direct occupation and innocent people were killed for standing in front of ther homes and the homes of their friends. Doesn't seem very accepting to me.

We can't move forward by going over hundreds and thousands of years of different people carrying out injustices against each other, but we potentially could recognise that everyone currently in the Middle East (with a few limited exceptions of people who really need to be tried for their crimes) probably needs to find a way to live together and respect each other. Israel needs to exist, so does Palestine. We don't achieve that by occupation or terrorism.

Dulra: Hamas Charter says it's express purpose is to annihilate
Israel. It was elected on that platform. It's members and supported openly state on television, in journalistic interviews and on social media that their intent is to murder Jews and annihilate Israel. They have committed in excess of 2300 terrorist attacks against Israel and launched hundreds of thousands of missiles at it. They have targeted school buses, nurseries, discos, cafes and used their own children as suicide bombers. Countless weapons imports have been intercepted. And most recently they entered into a music festival wearing parachutes and butchered, raped and kidnapped hundreds of citizens in broad daylight, video filmed it around the world and then openly stated they will do it again and again.

Can you explain to me exactly how me characterising this as a danger to it's neighbours is "incredibly offensive".

Are they are are they not a danger to Israel Dulra?

I find quite the opposite to be true. @CaterhamReconstituted is completely right.

Israel provide troops to allow open, unrestricted delivery of an average of 173 trucks of food a day (more than any conflict I can conceive of) to Gazan people. If they simply didn't care what the world though, they would not let the trucks in!

The idea that they would do this, only to deliberately kill 7 people trying to deliver it, it ridiculous. There is no logical reason for doing that which benefits them in any way, shape or form.

In order to believe it, you would need to be so possessed by the fantasy of the scheming, evil, tricky Jew of Hitler's imagination that you have bypassed basic common sense.

It's ridiculous.

If they wanted to starve Gazans, they'd just come up with reasons not to let trucks in. That's happened in every other conflict I can think of! Do you have any idea how hard it was to get food into Yemen, the Congo, Rwanda? it was bloody impossible!

What I think includes the following...

That Hamas cannot reasonably be left in power. They have been responsible for a horrendous terrorist attack and need to be brought to justice.

That the taking of hostages and the reported ill-treatment of hostages is horrendous. Any path to peace must not forget them.

That there is a sustained pattern of conduct within this military operation which does not demonstrate a particular concern for minimising civilian deaths and injuries. There have, in relative contrast, been more targeted strikes elsewhere to eliminate key figures while keeping civilian casualties low. This, plus what is widely known about IDF military capabilities, suggests that the pattern in Gaza is reflecting intention rather than incompetence.

That there is evidence of civilians being ordered to evacuate to areas which were designated 'safe zones', which were then bombed.

That there are extremely concerning reports coming from multiple sources, of actions such as the deliberate targeting of civilians, the executions of healthcare workers, the destruction of hospitals and other critical infrastructure with no firm evidence to justify this.

That IDF soldiers, apparently of their own free will, are posting on social media about what they're doing, with sustained patterns of behaviour strongly suggestive of a widespread culture within the IDF operating in Gaza of dehumanisation and potential war crimes being considered acceptable. Long before this particular military operation, 'shoot to kill' orders were being given in relation to children who posed no threat and there were orders to maim people to leave them with visible, lasting disabilities. Long before this operation, people were being crushed to death with armoured bulldozers. Many of the components of this operation are not new, they're simply scaled up.

That aid into Gaza is being severely limited, by a number of barriers put in place by the Israeli government. It has always been limited, but now the lack of aid, combined with the destruction of the land in Gaza, means there is famine. Children are starving to death because there is no aid getting in.

All conflicts, especially in enclosed urban environments, are going to have civilian casualties. It is a requirement, though, for there to be meaningful steps taken to mitigate that and, where casualties are unavoidable, to have a defensible, evidence-based justification for it. There are international rules about what you can and can't do to civilian populations. Those aren't being followed and there is no evidence of efforts being made to follow them.

In relation to the WCK aid workers, it appears to be fairly widely accepted that there were three strikes, on the three cars, at different times. It also appears to be fairly widely accepted that the strikes were carried out by Israeli forces. Why and what processes resulted in this may never be determined as there is unlikely to be an independent investigation. An internal investigation lacks credibility, but will likely be accepted by other governments because it would be politically convenient to do so. People will have their own theories and opinions.