It's always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are: 'it's suicide to treat Palestinians as people'; 'innocent folks will be expelled from their land if we treat Palestinians as people'; "or worse, killed!'
It's bizarre because all the horrible prophecies have already come true, or are coming true, only with the roles reversed: We see that it is actually israel genociding Palestinians, rather than vice versa.
Somehow these doomsaying prophets feel this dystopia is actually totally ok, as long as the victims have a particular religion or skin color. Or, to be charitable, maybe the prophets have been paying exactly zero attention to what israel has been doing to innocent Palestinian civilians over the years.
The last time Palestinians voted they quite literally elected Hamas terrorists[0], you're making it out as if making Jews a minority and Palestinians a majority in Israel wouldn't represent an existential threat to the Jewish population. There are zero Jews living under Palestinian rule(i.e Gaza and the West Bank Areas A/B), why do you think it would be any different if they were given majority voting rights in Israel?
After nearly a century of Israeli oppression and zero interest from the international community, them electing a terrorist organization is certainly understable, even if still not justified. The first step is to reassure Palestinians that their neighbors won't start mass-murdering them again, something Israel has currently no interest in doing.
> The first step is to reassure Palestinians that their neighbors won't start mass-murdering them again, something Israel has currently no interest in doing.
Israelis don't just start killing Palestinians for no reason historically however, that pretty much always happens in response to some form of Palestinian aggression. It's not like Israel can just ignore attacks either as that would just encourage further attacks.
Israel is a settler colonial project, as far as I'm concerned they cast the first stone. Or rather, the British sending them here did. Not that it matters much in the end, but today Israel plays the role of the oppressor and Palestine of the oppressed.
> "This sort of entirely one-sided narrative is a huge impediment to peaceful coexistence."
> "Israelis don't just start killing Palestinians for no reason historically however, that pretty much always happens in response to some form of Palestinian aggression"
Fascinating how these 2 posts came from the same person. You are so close to getting it, you just need to take your advice from the first quote there and apply it to the second quote there.
Notably, israel kills around a hundred innocent Palestinians in Gaza daily, unprovoked, while the Palestinians are queuing for food. israel also regularly stages settler terrorist attacks on innocent Palestinians in the west bank: killing Palestinians; burning Palestinian homes and cars and crops; often claiming Palestinian land as their own. When "the authorities" (the IDF) arrive, they often support the terrorists and join in the violence against Palestinians.
But of course, it was because those innocent Palestinians are "being aggressive" by living in the west bank, which israel says they want, right? (They call it "greater israel", just like how the kremlin calls Ukraine "greater russia"). Obviously israel's ethnic cleansing is justified, because they really want someone else's land and stuff, right?
> At a minimum you should go back to the 1800s
We really don't need to. We just need to go back to the point where international laws came into being, including israel agreeing not to expand their territory through violence (a prerequisite to joining the UN). It doesn't matter who used to own it, what matters is global, international consensus on who owns what now (and who should), and global, international consensus on the right way to behave (in accordance with international law, as judged by the designated international courts). This goes even if israel strongly feels it is biased or unfair: after all, pretty much every criminal thinks the justice system that criticizes them is unfair. Like, of course criminals would say that, wouldn't they?
> Fascinating how these 2 posts came from the same person. You are so close to getting it, you just need to take your advice from the first quote there and apply it to the second quote there.
My point is that this conflict can be characterized heavily by back and forth attacks and retaliation from both sides.
> Notably, israel kills around a hundred innocent Palestinians in Gaza daily, unprovoked, while the Palestinians are queuing for food.
This claim is just wildly inaccurate, it's completely divorced from reality, nobody, not even the UN or the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry claim that around a hundred Palestinians are killed a day while queuing for food(they claim around 20 on average per day are killed while queuing for food[0]). Keep in mind that these are claims made by the GHM without proving much evidence to validate the circumstances of the claimed deaths at aid distribution sites. These claims are especially suspect since the Hamas run Gaza Health Ministry has strong incentives make statements that discourage aid distribution mechanisms which bypass Hamas.
> israel also regularly stages settler terrorist attacks on innocent Palestinians in the west bank: killing Palestinians; burning Palestinian homes and cars and crops; often claiming Palestinian land as their own. When "the authorities" (the IDF) arrive, they often support the terrorists and join in the violence against Palestinians.
Did I ever defend this sort of thing? I agree there are significant issues with West Bank settlers/settlements.
> But of course, it was because those innocent Palestinians are "being aggressive" by living in the west bank, which israel says they want, right? (They call it "greater israel", just like how the kremlin calls Ukraine "greater russia"). Obviously israel's ethnic cleansing is justified, because they really want someone else's land and stuff, right?
You seems to be downplaying Palestinian terrorism in the West Bank by calling it "being aggressive". The term "greater israel" is also problematic in general since there's a wide range of claims people make regarding what that term even means.
Part of the problem here is that there is very little clear delineation regarding who's land it is, you're talking about a region where many borders were essentially armistice lines as opposed to clearly recognized borders. Keep in mind that Palestinians themselves largely reject even the 1967 borders as they believe all of Israel to be their land. This is one of the reasons attempts at a two state solution have likely failed.
The situation with Russia and Ukraine is not very comparable since there were mutually recognized borders[1] that Russia unambiguously violated.
> We really don't need to. We just need to go back to the point where international laws came into being, including israel agreeing not to expand their territory through violence (a prerequisite to joining the UN). It doesn't matter who used to own it, what matters is global, international consensus on who owns what now (and who should), and global, international consensus on the right way to behave (in accordance with international law, as judged by the designated international courts).
The issue here is international law is not remotely clear either, a real problem is a lack of peace agreements establishing recognized borders between parties, parties(i.e. Lebanon, Syria) that have so far refused to even sign peace agreements that would recognize Israel as a legitimate state.
The situation with Palestine is even more convoluted, since prior to 1967 Gaza Was Egyptian controlled territory and the West Bank had been annexed by Jordan. When Israel signed peace agreements with Egypt all territorial claims over Gaza were renounced by Egypt(despite Israel attempting to negotiate the return Gaza to Egypt). Jordan did sign peace agreements with Israel in 1994 and had officially abandoned all claims to the West Bank in 1988 prior to the peace agreements. So essentially we have ended up with a situation where there is land without an established recognized UN state being in control(the state of Palestine is not recognized by the UN).
> This goes even if israel strongly feels it is biased or unfair: after all, pretty much every criminal thinks the justice system that criticizes them is unfair. Like, of course criminals would say that, wouldn't they?
The issue is a lack of peace agreements establishing recognized borders, the UN/international law can not force peace agreements onto warring parties. Once Israel makes peace agreements establishing recognized borders(i.e. with Egypt/Jordan) they have not historically violated those borders. There are also numerous issues in general when it comes to enforcement of international law as UN courts don't really have independent enforcement mechanisms, the Security Council members effectively have veto power over ICJ rulings(which is one reason the UN is going to be incapable of enforcing rulings against Security Council members or their allies). Then there is the fact that Israel(similar to most countries) would be unlikely to follow an international court ruling if in their view the ruling would create an existential threat to their countries existence.
So no, saying we should let international law is the solution here isn't likely to be all that productive when it comes to resolving these issues.
Of course its understandable. Its also understandable that the israelis are not willing to accept people who want to kill them into their state. Both sides want to kill each other.
I don't think most Israelis actually want to kill Palestinians, but at a minimum I do think the majority of Palestinians probably want to expel all Israeli Jews from Israel(at least based on Palestinian opinion polling).
> I don't think most Israelis actually want to kill Palestinians
Then why are they standing by while their democratically elected government enacts a starvation campaign? The reality is that most Israelis are now pro genocide, just like most Palestinians
Your post weirdly focuses on only the concerns of israelis, even though Palestinians are equal people with equal human rights, including an equal right to protection from israeli violence. Do you even realize that you're not treating Palestinians as humans?
> The last time Palestinians voted they quite literally elected Hamas terrorists
The last time israelis voted, they quite literally elected not only terrorists, but war criminals, criminals against humanity, and literal genociders. Obviously that's worse! Thus, israel has no moral high ground here to attack others, and should look inward and fix itself first.
> There are zero Jews living under Palestinian rule
"Palestinian rule" is not a thing at the moment: all Palestinians are currently ruled (dominated even) by a genocidal israeli military occupation that kills hundreds of innocent civilians daily.
> Your post weirdly focuses on only the concerns of israelis, even though Palestinians are equal people with equal human rights, including an equal right to protection from israeli violence. Do you even realize that you're not treating Palestinians as humans?
It's not clear what you're suggesting in practice, we can all say Palestinians should be given equal rights in an ideal world but that doesn't really bring us any closer to resolving the conflict.
> The last time israelis voted, they quite literally elected not only terrorists, but war criminals, criminals against humanity, and literal genociders. Obviously that's worse! Thus, israel has no moral high ground here to attack others, and should look inward and fix itself first.
I'm certainly not a fan of the current Israeli government but with how Israeli elections(proportional representation) work you tend to get more extremist parties than you would in systems like the United States where you usually just end up with a two party system.
> "Palestinian rule" is not a thing at the moment: all Palestinians are currently ruled (dominated even) by a genocidal israeli military occupation that kills hundreds of innocent civilians daily.
There is a form of Palestinian rule in which the Palestinian Authority exercises a certain level of control in the West Bank, in Gaza Hamas still retains some control as well. I would agree it's not the same thing as an independent state but I don't think characterizing it as no Palestinian rule at all is accurate either.
> It's not clear what you're suggesting in practice, we can all say Palestinians should be given equal rights in an ideal world but that doesn't really bring us any closer to resolving the conflict.
That is unnecessary, because Palestinians already have equal rights which are not legally alienable. israel is merely illegally violating them.
It's also not necessary for equal rights to bring us to any sort of resolution. Equal rights are more important than israel's unequal, unilateral safety, and a country whose existence depends on the violation of others' rights, must find a new, legal way to exist instead. Equal rights come first, and only then can we even begin to discuss a resolution. We tried the other way around, and it has failed to produce a resolution after decades of war.
> how Israeli elections(proportional representation) work you tend to get more extremist parties
This seems to be agreeing with me? Like yeah, israelis voted for terrorists, war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders. That is at least as bad as hamas. It's also kind of telling how you refer to a terrorist as an "extremist" when they're israeli. Why soften the language only for 1 ethnic group in the conflict while hardening it for another?
> There is a form of Palestinian rule in which the Palestinian Authority exercises a certain level of control in the West Bank
There is no Palestinian rule. They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis. They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms. Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
> That is unnecessary, because Palestinians already have equal rights which are not legally alienable. israel is merely illegally violating them.
Which rights are you referring to? Do you think they all have a right to full Israeli citizenship?
> It's also not necessary for equal rights to bring us to any sort of resolution. Equal rights are more important than israel's unequal, unilateral safety, and a country whose existence depends on the violation of others' rights, must find a new, legal way to exist instead. Equal rights come first, and only then can we even begin to discuss a resolution. We tried the other way around, and it has failed to produce a resolution after decades of war.
If one knew with a high degree of certainty that giving full voting rights to all Palestinians would result in the elimination of the Jewish population from the land would you still be in favor of giving all Palestinians full voting rights? You seem to be advocating for giving full voting rights to a population which largely doesn't believe in equal rights.
> This seems to be agreeing with me? Like yeah, israelis voted for terrorists, war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders. That is at least as bad as hamas. It's also kind of telling how you refer to a terrorist as an "extremist" when they're israeli. Why soften the language only for 1 ethnic group in the conflict while hardening it for another?
If you're referring to people like Ben-Gvir, then I would agree(as did the Israeli courts and likely most Israelis) that he is a supporter of terrorism. At the same time there have been other Knesset members like Haneen Zoabi who have made statements effectively supporting Palestinian terrorism as well. I'm not sure if there have been war criminals and criminals against humanity elected, that's a much higher bar than merely supporting terrorism(which is something that unfortunately large percentages of Palestinian society supports). Since the claims of genocide against Israel are not supported by the evidence I probably would not agree there have been genociders elected. As I mentioned earlier the way Israeli elections work makes it much easier for extremists to get elected, and this plays out for both sides naturally.
> There is no Palestinian rule.
There is some level of Palestinian rule under the Oslo Accords, I agree it's not a full state but it's arguably not "no Palestinian rule" whatsoever. Hamas had effectively full control of Gaza's territory for many years as well.
> They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis. They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms. Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
There is a military occupation with some level of rule delegated to Palestinian authorities. Palestinian leaders and society have in general not been very supportive of many of those freedoms you mention, especially freedom of speech and freedom of press in addition to other freedoms like freedom of religion(no Jews live in Gaza or West Bank areas A/B at all for example).
> Which rights are you referring to? Do you think they all have a right to full Israeli citizenship?
Whichever rights israelis have, Palestinians also have. Whichever rights israel has, Palestine also has. If israel claims a right to safety from Palestinian attacks, then Palestine has an exactly equal right to safety from israeli attacks. If israel has a right to control their borders, Palestine does too. If israel has a right to 100% control their own trade, then Palestine does, too. This isn't that complicated.
> If one knew with a high degree of certainty that giving full voting rights to all Palestinians would result in the elimination of the Jewish population from the land...
You have this backwards: Palestinians already have rights by virtue of human beings, just like israelis. Likewise, Palestine has rights by virtue of being a country, just like israel. What comes after those rights are respected may be complicated, but is not as important as equal rights. Equal rights is most important, and an oppressor like apartheid South Africa or apartheid israel doesn't get to deny anyone their rights out of fear, or for any other reason.
> There is some level of Palestinian rule under the Oslo Accords
There is no Palestinian rule. They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis. They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms. Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
> Palestinian leaders and society have in general not been very supportive of many of those freedoms you mention
Surprise surprise, israel is even less supportive, and "they did it first" isn't an excuse to deny a person or country their rights.
> I'm not sure if there have been war criminals and criminals against humanity elected
>Since [I personally believe] the claims of genocide against Israel are not supported by the evidence...
While you are no doubt a good person, reality does not depend on what you think or perceive. Luckily, the relevant authorities (international courts, scholarly institutions) seem pretty confident that israeli electees are war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders, so you don't need to be.
> Whichever rights israelis have, Palestinians also have.
I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have different citizenship in general will have different rights.
> Whichever rights israel has, Palestine also has.
If they don't have the same citizenship then they wouldn't have the same rights because they would live under different governments.
> If israel claims a right to safety from Palestinian attacks, then Palestine has an exactly equal right to safety from israeli attacks. If israel has a right to control their borders, Palestine does too. If israel has a right to 100% control their own trade, then Palestine does, too. This isn't that complicated.
It's unclear what you mean by this in practice, I would agree that if there was a peace agreement in place then this would be ideal, but there may be practical issues. For countries bordering Israel like Jordan/Egypt which have made peace agreements this is effectively the case so I don't see any reasons Israel would reject this outright. Keep in mind that since there is no peace agreement with Palestine creating established borders something like this isn't currently feasible.
> There is no Palestinian rule. They are ruled, dominated even, by israelis.
You're making it as if it's all or nothing, when in reality there's a lot more nuance here.
> They do not have freedom of choice, or freedom of trade, or freedom of speech, or freedom of press, or freedom of movement within their own land of Palestine, because israel denies them each and every one of those freedoms.
Their own leaders often deny them those freedoms, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. They also don't have clearly defined borders in general which is a big part of the problem(i.e. the lack of a peace agreement creating mutually recognized borders).
> Palestinians are frequently victims of israeli terrorist attacks in Palestine too. When the IDF shows up, they often participate in the terrorist attacks. israel does not even allow Palestinians to defend themselves from israeli terrorist attacks. That is not Palestinian rule.
There are levels of rule below that of having a fully independent state.
> Surprise surprise, israel is even less supportive, and "they did it first" isn't an excuse to deny a person or country their rights.
Palestinians that are Israeli citizens have effectively all those rights. Israel doesn't recognize Palestine as a state due to a lack of a peace agreement, an actual peace agreement establishing a Palestinian state must be negotiated, unilateral disengagement(like Israel tried with Gaza in the past) does not work, likewise unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will also be unlikely to work, both sides must agree on terms to end the conflict.
> Luckily, the relevant authorities (international courts, scholarly institutions) seem pretty confident that israeli electees are war criminals, criminals against humanity, and genociders, so you don't need to be.
Unfortunately many of these groups(UN and UN affiliated organizations especially) have a major credibility problem, from their outright lies[0][1], to poorly supported reports which cherry-pick data to create a false narrative[2] one certainly can't blindly trust the UN to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias against Israel[3].
> I mean Israelis have Israeli citizenship...not Palestinian citizenship, individuals that have different citizenship in general will have different rights.
> If they don't have the same citizenship then they wouldn't have the same rights because they would live under different governments.
Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect.
> You're making it as if it's all or nothing, when in reality there's a lot more nuance here.
You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule.
> Their own leaders often deny them those freedoms, both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions.
> Israel doesn't recognize Palestine as a state
What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state. Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land.
> Unfortunately many of these groups(UN and UN affiliated organizations especially) have a major credibility problem
Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem. Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies. One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel.
> Obviously the rights we're talking about are natural rights -- see the UN declarations to that effect.
That's very non-specific.
> You haven't actually shared any of that nuance. Which things do Palestinians exercise "rule" (complete control) over, without israel thinking that it is their business and interfering? Examples might include: Rule over sea-based import/export; rule over transit within Palestine; rule over journalism. Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule.
In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions(there may have been a blockade but that was imposed by multiple countries, both Egypt and Israel). The PA has some degree of authority the West Bank below that of "complete control". There is no universally agreed upon definition for what territory is Palestine since there is no peace treaty between the involved parties. Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs. So there it's not remotely clear what "rule over transit within Palestine" would actually mean.
> rule over journalism
Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control.
> Examples in this case unfortunately do not include any of those: in all cases, israel believes it has the right to interfere with violent veto power, which means there is no Palestinian rule.
You seem to be describing the ongoing war, and without a peace agreement that's generally just how wars work. In WW2 Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were heavily blockaded by the allies until they surrendered and stopped fighting.
> It is israel denying them those freedoms -- their unconvincing PR campaign of abusing Palestinians and blaming others for 'making them do it' has not held water in international institutions.
Their own governments, ones they elected(Hamas) and would likely elect again(Hamas) if given the vote are some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world, Palestinians will never be free when the likes of Hamas(and to some degree the PA) are their leaders even if the occupation by Israel ended completely.
> What israel recognizes here is not relevant -- there is not an exception in international law for "the aggressor doesn't recognize any rights of the victimized". What is more relevant is what the international community recognizes, and they recognize Palestine as a state.
Palestine is not recognized as a state by the UN(since the US has veto power over recognition effectively).
> Thus, it is entitled to all the rights a state is entitled to, including protection from a genocidal foreign occupying power which seeks to conquer their country and take their land.
The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state, the UN is not going to stop this conflict, in this region ending conflicts basically always happens via bilateral negotiations and peace deals(of which Israel has had many successful of course historically). Israel does not attack countries it has peace deals with.
> Unfortunately, the few people making this claim have an even greater credibility problem.
Are you referring to the UN official that admitted he outright lied about starvation risks?
> Thus, the assertions of those groups can be dismissed, unless they want to put them forward for consensus or judgement by the relevant international bodies.
Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from. The "relevant" international bodies have basically no credibility when it comes to these issues, especially the UN, one reason is that they themselves have been directly involved in perpetuating the conflict(i.e. via UNRWA policies).
> One certainly can't blindly trust these critics to provide accurate information due to their well documented history of extreme bias towards israel.
You can go through the sources in these reports and validate the facts yourself, on the other hand the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions and often ignores counterfactual data and cherry-picks data to fit a certain narrative.
Is it? I'm afraid I disagree, but then again, I've read the documents I mentioned. Feel free to ask for help if you want more clarity!
> In Gaza, especially prior to October 7th Hamas were the rulers of that territory by all those definitions
Unfortunately this is not true, because it does not meet the definition (even you acknowledge "exceptions" in your post, and 1 exception disproves the rule). You also keep switching "Gaza" out for "Palestine", which is the country we're discussing.
So, please reassess now that you know we're taking about Palestine, not "Gaza" or any other geographical sub-portions of it: What is the "limited" list of things which Palestinians currently exercise rule over in all of Palestine (rule meaning total control, without israel believing it has the right to interfere with violent veto power)?
> Most Palestinians think the entirety of Israel should be theirs
israel thinks the entirely of Palestine should be israel's, and is effecting this goal via genocide. So, even worse than what you claimed. Let that sink in.
> some of the least free and most oppressive Governments in the world
And yet, in Palestine, the genocidal israeli occupiers are even worse than that. Let that sink in.
> Both Hamas and the PA have restricted what sort of reporting is allowed in areas they control
And yet, in Palestine, israel does that even more, and also israel's latest conflict has killed journalists at a greater rate than any other in history. Let that sink in.
> The UN doesn't even recognize Palestine as a state
The international community (which comprises the UN) recognizes Palestine. Most countries in the world do. israel is merely an exception.
> outright lied about starvation
Are you referring to israel here, who has repeatedly outright lied about starvation, as judged by the authorities on starvation?
> Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from
Likewise, lies are lies, wherever they come from. When it comes to unconvincing israeli claims that any and every critic in the world is biased against them, we certainly aren't referring to facts or truth.
> the UN tends to not put out sufficient data to validate their assertions
israel tends to attack and murder the people who validate such things that israel lies about, so they have lost the benefit of the doubt regarding such things. This is known in courts as an "adverse inference". If they wish to have more than zero credibility here, they can allow independent investigators into Palestine (all of it), without murdering them, to the satisfaction of the relevant investigatory bodies.
As far as bias goes: If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court. Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
> Is it? I'm afraid I disagree, but then again, I've read the documents I mentioned. Feel free to ask for help if you want more clarity!
You seem to just want to use vague terms and play word games.
> Unfortunately this is not true, because it does not meet the definition (even you acknowledge "exceptions" in your post, and 1 exception disproves the rule). You also keep switching "Gaza" out for "Palestine", which is the country we're discussing.
So you're saying Egypt and Israel were the rulers of Gaza...I mean if you really want to use ridiculously confusing definitions go ahead, but that's not particularly helpful.
> israel thinks the entirely of Palestine should be israel's
Then why did they leave Gaza in 2005?
> is effecting this goal via genocide
You have to really ignore the facts to make that claim, exactly like many UN officials do.
> And yet, in Palestine, israel does that even more, and also israel's latest conflict has killed journalists at a greater rate than any other in history. Let that sink in.
What people call journalists in Palestine often includes individuals holding actual hostages[0] and others that are part of Hamas, so those claims are quite problematic in general.
> When it comes to unconvincing israeli claims that any and every critic in the world is biased against them, we certainly aren't referring to facts or truth.
There are plenty that disagree with the claims, either way UN officials showing their bias isn't anything new and certainly didn't start with this conflict.
> If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court.
There are cases in progress with the ICJ, Israel isn't the one making the claim of genocide, they are defending against a claim, the burden of proof is on the parties making the claims, and they have so far failed to provide sufficient evidence to back their claims.
> claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
The burden of proof is on those that make the claims against Israel, and the UN has a way bigger credibility issue than Israel does when it comes to this conflict.
> You seem to just want to use vague terms and play word games.
If you don't seek clarity, it's totally ok for you to not ask. No pressure.
> So you're saying Egypt and Israel were the rulers of Gaza
Not sure where you got that from, it makes no sense. I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, whereas it's been reiterated thousands of times, via violence, that israel rules over Palestine with an iron, exploding fist.
> There are plenty that disagree with the claims
There are plenty that disagree with those that disagree with the claims. There are also plenty who disagree with the earth being round. That very loud people in the extreme minority disagree with something is not really evidence of anything.
> You have to really ignore the facts to make that claim, exactly like many UN officials do.
More accurately, one would really have to ignore facts to make the above quoted claim, like many supporters of the israeli genocide of Palestinians do.
> What people call journalists in Palestine often includes individuals holding actual hostages[0] and others that are part of Hamas, so those claims are quite problematic in general.
This is a claim often repeated by supporters of the israeli genocide of Palestinians, but unfortunately they never provide evidence of this "often" being the case. That said, the number of people who are both journalists and active combatants could theoretically be as high as 99%, and it still wouldn't justify israel restricting, much less killing, the remaining 1%.
> UN officials showing their bias
If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court. Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
> they have so far failed to provide sufficient evidence to back their claims.
Correction here: those claiming israel is perpetrating a genocide in general have provided sufficient evidence to back their claims. Regarding the formal court case around it: the plaintiffs have also provided sufficient evidence to back their claims.
> UN has a way bigger credibility issue than Israel does
You have this backwards: israel has a way bigger credibility issue than the UN (nearly 200 other nations united). So far, israel has failed to convince the world (the UN) that they have more credibility than the rest of the world put together.
> Not sure where you got that from, it makes no sense. I haven't seen any credible evidence to that effect, whereas it's been reiterated thousands of times, via violence, that israel rules over Palestine with an iron, exploding fist.
My point was just that there have been various levels of control/rule over Gaza over the years by different parties, with Egypt ruling over Gaza following Israeli independence until 1967, then Israel until the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, then Hamas eventually took effectively full control after short period of conflict with Fatah. I'm deliberately not using the term "Palestine" here because there is no clear definition of what "Palestine" actually means(which is a significant issue in this conflict obviously).
> That said, the number of people who are both journalists and active combatants could theoretically be as high as 99%, and it still wouldn't justify israel restricting, much less killing, the remaining 1%.
By what standards are you making this claim? The laws of war clearly allow for collateral damage.
> If israel wishes to credibly prove their claims regarding bias against israel, they can submit their claims for judgement by the UN or international court.
Under what international procedure would Israel submit their claims of innocence of genocide for judgement? The burden of proof is on the party claiming there is genocide. This is aside from the obvious conflict of interest the UN has(as they are a party directly involved in perpetuating the conflict over the years with a clear history of double standards).
> Until then, given israel's long history of bias, lying, murdering investigators, and claiming that everybody who criticizes them is biased, israel's claims can be assumed false wherever they would be self-serving.
One should look at the evidence rather than blindly accepting anti-Israeli propaganda at face value.
> Correction here: those claiming israel is perpetrating a genocide in general have provided sufficient evidence to back their claims. Regarding the formal court case around it: the plaintiffs have also provided sufficient evidence to back their claims.
By what standards? There have been claims made(many of them with very obvious flaws), and there has yet to be a ruling on those claims.
> You have this backwards: israel has a way bigger credibility issue than the UN (nearly 200 other nations united). So far, israel has failed to convince the world (the UN) that they have more credibility than the rest of the world put together.
Many UN organizations like the UNHRC have been effectively run by oppressive dictatorships over the years, these are countries which no sane person can argue have any moral authority when it comes to human rights[0]. This is a common pattern at the UN[1] and is precisely why the UN has such a severe credibility problem when it comes to human rights and morality in general. People really need to understand what the UN actually is before they start claiming it as some sort of moral authority.
> always bizarre to hear this sort of doomsaying about what would befall israelis if they treated Palestinians as the equal humans they are
Treating others as equals and co-inhabiting a space with them are quite different. Israel needs to treat Palestinians with dignity. But a lot of Palestinians (and Israelies) legitimately believe in exterminating the other. That's not a stable social base for building a state on.
