- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- news@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- news@kbin.social
Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
They weren’t in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome?
A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank.
As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border.
The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza.
Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid.
Didn’t Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza?
Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements.
I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions.
That’s saying “the beatings will continue until morale improves”.
It’s an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities.
Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor.
But they’re literally both oppressors
GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership.
You’re also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it’s doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible.
I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it’s ‘violence is the only answer’ stance.
deleted by creator
The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this.
Sure, maybe, you’re right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have.
But why shift it on Hamas when it’s Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I’m asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I’m not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it’s vicinity in one night (which happened already)
Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence.