Hamas don’t want peace

Well, of course certain concepts have legal definitions, we can agree on that, but like any law it can be interpreted in different way.

You asked whether I agreed with international law. You are still not asking me a question that is answerable to any meaningful extent. You need to be asking whether I agree if a certain law has been breached, by what standards that law is being interpreted, if relevant whether there are any meaningful mitigations. Whether there are any factors which have been used to reach those conclusions and whether the law is, in itself both legal and sensible. Thirst would be fundamental questions you should ask when looking at a situation/ it’s called critical thinking.

Yes, I suspect we have very different ways of looking at the world. And no, it’s probably worthless is having any further discussion unless you can engage in a serious debate.

@Feelingathomenow
I agree with the concept, I don’t agree with some of the content, some treaties between countries Hobbs people advantages over other residents of the same country through an accident of birth for example.
Which countries are you referring to here?

Do I agree with some of the enforcement, no, again often it is politicised and many enforcers and “peacekeepers” lack the courage to do humane things.
Well there is no official enforcement of international law. Peacekeepers are not their to enforce international law. Which humane things do you think peacekeepers lack the courage for?

So you did or didn't agree with the reports you send regarding human rights violations by Hamas? You were quoting them as evidence of Hamas brutality so it reads as you agree those reports were accurate

There are some aspects/and positions of Amnesty international I don’t agree with
Their reports of Israeli violations by any chance?

I think you'd agree that it's abit difficult given they are being killed by the IDF as we speak.. I'd love to know if you would work with someone who's killed most of your family members?

Again, that is not a straightforward answer. There are some aspects/and positions of Amnesty international I don’t agree with. I think only a fool would blindly agree with the position of any organisation. Any organisation has an agenda and motive and it would always be nevesssry to see any individual report on the light of this much larger picture.

There does seem to be a proliferation of the expectation of black and white thinking from certain quarters

@Feelingathomenow I noticed your earlier comment regarding the appalling behaviour of Hamas you cited many reports by Human rights organisations incl Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch. Can we assume then that you are in agreement with the definition of human rights law under international law and you trust these organisations to report on violations of human rights?

Have you thought for even a moment how practically that would be possible? Ignoring the absurdity of expecting a population displaced, maimed and exhausted being able to rise up against armed militants - any hostage freed would most likely be shot by the IDF if we are looking at patterns of behaviour even if they were when waving white flags. The IDF are busy shooting injured children as young as 3. If you really think they would "work with the Gazans" or in any way are trying to free the hostages you need to keep up with the news.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7893vpy2gqo.amp

Gazan's are now in IDF's grip. That's their biggest problem.

Thanks for the answer. I am of course - happy to admit - 100% ignorant on how you interpret the framework of international laws.

You vaguely accept an idea, but you prefer it would be different in some instances.

This clarity helps. For example, when we say 'war crimes', 'genocide', 'breach of humanitarian laws, of Vienna or Geneva conventions' , 'occupation', 'protections of civilians' etc, etc - all these reference some international laws. Of course these laws don't have a solid enforcement mechanism [because we do not have a world government with a world army, and that's not a bad thing that we don't have those].

If you don't fully agree with the laws mentioned above, then 'war crimes', 'human rights' don't mean much to you in the current scenario.

So, in my thinking the boundaries of 3000 years ago are a piece of history irrelevant to today's reality. And in your mind it matters.
In my view, say, Turkey has got nothing to do with Christmas, though many do cook turkeys for their dinner (that's reference to Jerusalem).

It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion when we have different fundamentals.

Hopefully the Gazans who don't support Hamas will rebel against them and free the hostages. Or work together with the IDF to release themselves from Hamas' iron grip.

Feelingathomenow · Today 09:53

I can see Hamas exist because the want the land Israel occupies and think it should be an Islamic state rather than Jewish.

Most of it is occupied illegally, the result of ethnic cleansing by the Israelis. It seems likely that Gaza will also be taken.

A good example of what?

Well, do I agree with international law is a big question. I agree with the concept, I don’t agree with some of the content, some treaties between countries Hobbs people advantages over other residents of the same country through an accident of birth for example. Do I agree with some of the enforcement, no, again often it is politicised and many enforcers and “peacekeepers” lack the courage to do humane things.

What are my views on the jurisprudence of international law, again this is complex and requires a focused answer to jace any meaning.

So yes it’s a big question, the very fact you seem to think it is black and white highlights your ignorance in this area.

So, as I have asked, please clarify your question. Then we can address the specific point you are making.

I hope that’s not seriously your argument as to why Israel should control Jerusalem.. you’re going to have to come up with something better than that.

DNA tests have shown that Palestinians can trace their roots to the land for thousands of years and that it is likely these people were the the ‘original’ jews who were in most part then converted to Islam and Christianity. The same cannot be said of Ashkenazi and other European jews who migrated following the UN declaration of the state of Israel. In fact you are not allowed to take a DNA test in Israel without a court order as it is likely to show that the settlers have no roots to the land.

This one too is a good example.

I'm asking you if you agree with the principle of international law established in the 20th century and you give no answer but ask for references of your earlier posts where you also give no answer.

Well perhaps we can first back track and you can link your comments to my post?

I hope you do see that your statements are neither linked to the facts on the ground today nor international law. They are somewhat connected to some parts of history, so I'm not saying you make it all up, but the picture you build from those parts does not reflect what we observe today.

Do we agree on the starting point of international law?
If not, than it's 'might makes right' principle for all.

Ah I see, Iran is their friend, I was speaking also metaphorically (and the current trend fuelled by social media hysterics is somewhat bearing this out, don’t you think) I think Israel was aiming for the two terrorist groups to weaken each other within Gaza.

I can see Hamas exist because the want the land Israel occupies and think it should be an Islamic state rather than Jewish. Tbh the purpose of the story of Muhammad being taken up into heaven (the same as the Jewish Prophets) conveniently from Jerusalem was contrived with the purpose of marking its territory at Jerusalem (this is tactic well known amongst various religions from the days of Alexander the Great through Christianity eg many churches are built on old pagan sites). So it’s really set up to cause issues and has done for centuries.

I would think the best thing would be for Jerusalem to come under international control as the starting point for any negotiations to immediately take this out the equation. It would be better if a two state solution would involve a Palestinian state being to the north so it was linked onto Iran so it wasn’t trapped between Israel and the sea.

Feelingathomenow · 13/11/2024 15:20

And what “compromises” were expected of Israel? You don’t think it was anything to do with trying to stop Israel being attacked from all sides?

Not that old trope, Israel isn't being attacked on all sides, most of its neighbours have normalised relations with them. Israel has surrounded, enclosed and besieged Gaza for 16 years. Air raids, artillery strikes and killings with small arms, by the Israelis, have long been a daily occurrence for Gazans.

Now, Hamas can all die in a fire for me, but surely you can see why they exist? Much of their success is a result of Israeli funding and support, which they did, in order to weaken Fatah.

You mean the people occupying Palestine?

Thanks for sharing. The voices of more reasonable, less homicidal people in Palestine haven't been getting heard, but they do exist.

Hamas aren't the only political entity representing Palestine, but it would be difficult to negotiate an end to the conflict without them having some role in those negotiations (given that most people, I think, would want any negotiations to cover hostage release, cessation of hostilities on all sides, and the dismantling/disarmament of terrorist groups).

In relation to "from the river to the sea", it's a phrase I dislike, for reasons I've previously explained. I would point out, though, that it's also used by prominent groups in Israel calling for 'Greater Israel' "from the river to the sea" - would you be ok with people using it in that sense? Also, it's not in itself classed as hate speech or illegal in the UK or many other countries.

this isn’t true and is something that is constantly used to justify the genocide . The Hamas charter was changed in 2017 . The Israeli finance minister has however openly called on national
tv for the West Bank to
be annexed . A total call for genocide . Mike
huckabee America’s ambassador to Israel has been going around saying ‘there’s no such thing as the West Bank just judea and Samaria.’
this has been going on for decades ! What gives the Israelis the right to openly call for genocide and why on earth do people
like you support this ! By your reasoning the Palestinians have the right to go on a killing spree in Israel considering the Israeli ministers have been so brazenly calling for the genocide of the Palestinian people !!!!

Yes unfortunately for Palestinians they are only represented at meetings by Hamas who want to take over all of Israel. Their virtue signalling lefties over here in Europe chant things like "Palestine from the river to the sea" which implies the total removal of Israel and is classified as hate speech.

Are you saying the Palestinians should control Jerusalem?
You do know that Jew is the word meaning someone from Jerusalem?

Hamas raison d'etre is the total obliteration of Israel. So they would be a one state solution. As there is no way this will ever be allowed to happen it means we get a war. The war will continue until either Israel is obliterated or Hamas is. We need to stop delaying the inevitable as it just causes more suffering. Smash Hamas and the civilians stop dying.