Hamas-Israeli War 2023

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
2. If you look at the replies & quotes to the video, the IDF’s external facing propaganda is not working on even neutrals — the way the video at Rantisi children's hospital, is cut raises more questions. The IDF needs to improve its external facing comms, as neutrals cannot accept such a sloppy job as evidence.
I'm afraid at this point many people are already polarized. It would be preferable if the video wasn't cut at any point, but for me the items found in the basement as well as the hostage room are pretty conclusive so I don't know what to really comment on here.


4. @Big_Zucchini, please address some of the points raised by pro-Palestinian supporters about the hole being a lift shaft at the Rantisi children's hospital.
The "pro-Palestinian" (anti if you ask me) claims are all over the place. Hagari went in with a cameraman and preceded by a combat team - sloppy indeed, or perhaps not expected to draw such a wide audience. What should, and is likely to happen, is the IDF will send professional journalists once and if it is cleared.
Regarding the hole specifically - the term "Hamas tunnel" is not binary. Some tunnels are built purposefully for a military operation, some are an integral part of a structure, and some are plain civilian infrastructure. But it's not the origin that matters but rather the function. If there is an underground facility/passage and it is used by Hamas for any activity, it is a Hamas tunnel. As long as it goes underground and can facilitate a person or a number of persons, and/or supplies and equipment to aid them in any Hamas activity, it's a Hamas tunnel. If that lift shaft was used to move Hamas personnel or hostages into and out of the hospital - it is a Hamas tunnel. If it was used for combat - also a Hamas tunnel.


When it comes to the Spokesperson and Spox unit, I am not aware of a track record of lying to the public. Daniel Hagari in particular has done a wonderful job. There is simply too much evidence of Hamas using hospitals for military purposes, hence my conclusion that anyone who discredits the whole narrative based on Hagari's suboptimal PR work, is simply not trying to be informed and debate in good faith.

Separately, the US seems to confirm Israeli intelligence about the Al Shifa hospital's Hamas tunnel network.

The source likely cited in the Tweet.


Geoconfirmed footage of a Hamas militant holding and later firing an RPG from within Al Quds hospital grounds.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Post 3 of 3: The idea of peace is a far off dream

7. Some of the things said by Israeli ministers, like Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and Avi Dichter can’t be defended. Unless these right wingers are out of Israeli Govt, they are harming the image of Israel, everyday to the younger generation in US & UK.

(a) Most of the battlefields in northern Gaza will be unfit for human habitation for months, if not years. Entire neighborhoods of Gaza City and its suburbs have been destroyed, not to mention the quantity of ordnance that will be left in the area. IDF supporters of Netanyahu are actively destroying Israel’s image. At some point, neutrals just can’t ignore the evidence.​
(b) Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich: “A cell with a small area like the Gaza Strip without natural resources and independent sources of livelihood has no chance to exist independently, economically and politically in such a high density for a long time.” Until such a time that Israel’s gov’t sacks these people, it will own such remarks and be accountable for them.​
(c) As Biden continues to reject calls for a cease-fire, many young progressives appear more disgusted with a Democratic president than they have been in decades. And it absolutely could cost Biden the US election in 2024. The younger generation in the US certainly have opinion without wisdom. I am also predicting the Conservatives in the UK lose at the next election & Labour is not Israel friendly.​
(d) At a people-to-people level, a significant number in Ukraine and Finland are willing to speak up & defend the IDF. I believe this support does not extend to the right wing members of Israel’s Govt.​

Hagari went in with a cameraman and preceded by a combat team - sloppy indeed, or perhaps not expected to draw such a wide audience. What should, and is likely to happen, is the IDF will send professional journalists once and if it is cleared

When it comes to the Spokesperson and Spox unit, I am not aware of a track record of lying to the public. Daniel Hagari in particular has done a wonderful job. There is simply too much evidence of Hamas using hospitals for military purposes, hence my conclusion that anyone who discredits the whole narrative based on Hagari's suboptimal PR work, is simply not trying to be informed and debate in good faith.
8. You are read is not only correct, it is predictive of the next step. I am impressed that Nic Robertson & a CNN crew were willing to take the calculated risk & went into the hospital with Hagari.

9. It is important to be transparent with evidence found & the TV crew with Nic Robertson found a knife the IDF was not aware of yet.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
UN OCHA Palestinian casualty count includes Hamas terrorists killed by the IDF inside Israel. I think this is the closest to a confirmation we'll get to the UN intentionally counting Hamas as civilians. They have also omitted the 240 hostages held in Gaza.
In previous wars and operations, the UN's numbers have been widely quoted and were at best controversial. This admission invalidates all previous counts as well as the current and future ones.
As of today, Hamas still insists it did not suffer any casualties.

Attaching screenshot just in case they delete it, as they often eventually do:
View attachment 50912
It doesn't say the Palestinian deaths in Israel were civilians, & it says 30 Israeli deaths in Gaza, which AFAIK includes military deaths.

Nowhere on that picture does it say anything about whether any of the deaths are military or civilian. It appears to be counting all deaths, without classifying them.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
7. Some of the things said by Israeli ministers, like Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and Avi Dichter can’t be defended. Unless these right wingers are out of Israeli Govt, they are harming the image of Israel, everyday to the younger generation in US & UK.

(a) Most of the battlefields in northern Gaza will be unfit for human habitation for months, if not years. Entire neighborhoods of Gaza City and its suburbs have been destroyed, not to mention the quantity of ordnance that will be left in the area. IDF supporters of Netanyahu are actively destroying Israel’s image. At some point, neutrals just can’t ignore the evidence.
I believe this is a sentiment/proposal that reaches beyond the simple "ultra right wing". Centrist secular-liberal party Yesh Atid's member and contender for top spot Ram Ben Barak, together with a liberal member of Likud Danny Danon, together wrote for WSJ a proposal for dispersion of Palestinian refugees in the west.


In Israeli culture, liberalism is mixed with hard security ideology that the western "liberal" camps is typically deterred from even debating. Displacement is seen in the west as this unspeakable action but there are hardly any Israelis who haven't been displaced or were refugees in some way at some point in their lives. We just don't speak about it because for Israelis it's considered very normal. Americans and Europeans do not have that perspective to factor into the debate. I was internally displaced several times in my life.

While they (Danon and Ben Barak) are currently in the spotlight, I can testify that this sentiment reaches not only into Israel's political center but also into its left as well. While on the political level Ram Ben Barak has been labeled for this as a Kahanist (Kahana was a religious extremist who promoted expulsion of all Arabs from Israel and displacement of all Palestinians into Arab countries), I am sure that if a poll was conducted among Yesh Atid (Yair Lapid's party) and Gantz's National Unity party voters, the results would not be so one-sided.

Therefore I believe this begs a deeper debate.

In Trump's peace proposal, a key element was the safeguarding and strengthening of Palestine's diaspora in the Arab states, e.g. Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. For any nation, it is important to have a diaspora and maintain healthy ties with it. A strong diaspora can be a powerful tool in softening negative trends/events in one place.

William Spaniel's video explains some factors in Israel's and the US's planning for Gaza's future. He does not reach a conclusion - all solutions are highly problematic to begin with. One thing he talks about is the defensibility of Israel's side of Gaza's border. A larger exclusion zone is a good idea on paper, but hardly feasible, and alone it is a static factor in a dynamic world of warfare. Israel must make Gaza's border more defensible nonetheless. A policy which the US opposes but may become a reality for Israel given its small and outstretched army, is an overall reduction of Gaza's border length. Setting the northern border at the Wadi Aza, for example, might free up at least one battalion from guarding Gaza. Some solutions must be found for reducing presence in J&S as well, but that is a separate topic with different factors altogether.

A larger exclusion zone or setting up the northern border at Wadi Aza, or any other conceivable solution that improves the border's defensibility is bound to reduce Gaza's overall territory. Yet, Gaza's population growth is massive. Over 50% are under 20. Even before the war, Gaza has been just above the surface regarding its humanitarian status, held up by Israel and international donors.
1699969125278.png

All in all, we see that Gaza is headed toward a humanitarian disaster, without even more significant aid. They are certainly headed toward unsustainability in Gaza.

It also cannot be assumed that any significant number of Palestinians would choose to accept a transfer, even if they have familial connections in the diaspora.

One leading part of a solution is the installation of a PA rule in Gaza, which itself could facilitate some population swap, or more likely a migration from Gaza to J&S, to a point of sustainability equilibrium. This, however, is unlikely to be welcomed by Israel as J&S already takes significant resources to control.

In theory, a coalition of Israel, EU, and US could establish a largely self sustainable Gaza. However, that has its own issues as Israel inherently distrusts the UN, and the EU itself is more likely to be a financial supporter rather than party to the decision-making.

Although EU's Josep Borrell weighed in on the situation and the question of Gaza's future, his proposals seem born of conservative thought - which historically has proven to fail in the region.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
It doesn't say the Palestinian deaths in Israel were civilians, & it says 30 Israeli deaths in Gaza, which AFAIK includes military deaths.

Nowhere on that picture does it say anything about whether any of the deaths are military or civilian. It appears to be counting all deaths, without classifying them.
The UN chooses to display casualties the way it deems fit, and consistently in the way that would portray Israel badly and Palestinians positively. Yes, they are technically almost correct, but presentation holds its own value, and today in many instances it arguably matters more than the information itself.
The presentation is poor and IMO intentionally biased because it plays into the narrative of a game of numbers - those with higher casualties are the underdog and morally right, and those with lower casualties are the aggressor and morally wrong. If you follow the conflict, you'd see that this is a common motive.

It intentionally ignores the fact that the vast majority of confirmed Israeli casualties are civilians, and the vast majority of confirmed Palestinian casualties are militants.

Further, it completely ignores the 240 Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

Had it been some unknown publication, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But knowing the UN, I cannot interpret this as anything but an intentionally biased message.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Displacement is seen in the west as this unspeakable action but there are hardly any Israelis who haven't been displaced or were refugees in some way at some point in their lives. We just don't speak about it because for Israelis it's considered very normal. Americans and Europeans do not have that perspective to factor into the debate. I was internally displaced several times in my life.
While they (Danon and Ben Barak) are currently in the spotlight, I can testify that this sentiment reaches not only into Israel's political center but also into its left as well.
There's no need of Displacement, you just get out and leave Palestinian land. Back to pre 67 border. Off course any Israeli who never think they are occupier will see this as defeat and giving up land.

The Arabs Gulf will pay the bill to rebuild Palestinian land, as long as Israel return to pre 67 border, as UN resolution put. Off course Israeli will say UN is bias, as they 'dare' to ask Israel to leave the occupied land.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
There's no need of Displacement, you just get out and leave Palestinian land. Back to pre 67 border. Off course any Israeli who never think they are occupier will see this as defeat and giving up land.

The Arabs Gulf will pay the bill to rebuild Palestinian land, as long as Israel return to pre 67 border, as UN resolution put. Off course Israeli will say UN is bias, as they 'dare' to ask Israel to leave the occupied land.
I am not in Palestinian land. I am inside my home, so not sure what you're talking about. And who's to say that 1967 is the "right" border? Why not 1947? Or 1948? Or 1973? Or 2004? Even if we can answer that, and choose any arbitrary border, that's not going to satisfy anyone. Back in Clinton's days the Palestinians were offered the entirety of Gaza and 96-97% of J&S plus land compensation from Israel but Yasser Arafat refused that offer and with that ended the myth that 1967 borders are somehow the end goal of Palestinian nationalism.

Of course, had they agreed - that would effectively mean mass displacement of Israelis, exactly as Israel did in 2005 when it uprooted thousands of Israelis from the Gush Katif area. Only that this mass displacement ultimately only led to more unnecessary deaths as a "return to 1967 borders" has only brought more wars rather than the promised peace.

Clinton's plan, which Israel accepted, would result in tens of thousands of Israeli Jews being forcibly displaced from their homes in J&S and moved further inland into Israel.

I mean, are we rooting for a return to 1967 borders with no mass displacement, or are we aware of geography and demographics? Because as it stands, right now, calls to return to 1967 borders are made in exactly the same spirit as calls to displace Palestinians from Gaza.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
I'm not in Palestinian land. I am inside my home, so not sure what you're talking about. And who's to say that 1967 is the "right" border?
That's the compromise border that UN agree to recognize as boundaries between Palestine and Israel. If your home is outside pre 67 border, then you are in Internationally recognized Israel. Simple as that.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
That's the compromise border that UN agree to recognize as boundaries between Palestine and Israel. If your home is outside pre 67 border, then you are in Internationally recognized Israel. Simple as that.
This assumes the UN is an authority on such matters. I do not know what is the basis of that assumption. The UN has certainly made no attempts to establish itself as an all-encompassing international mediator, nor has it been mandated to be one. Outside its original function to serve as a bridge between nuclear global powers, it is hollowed.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
This assumes the UN is an authority on such matters
UN doesn't have the authority to force any one unless support by Big 5. If they have, if their authority can be followed by all 5 big power on this matter, then Israel already being force to leave occupied Palestine, and back to pre 67. Of course 5 big power rarely has agreed on much of thing, especially in ME. However like it or not UN is the only global body that can be use as International talk.

So Israel can talk tough, because 2 of Big 5 always support Israel. However it is different on talking about displacement of Israeli settlers in Palestinian land, and displacement of Palestinian from within their Internationaly recognise border. Israel plan just a plan Netanyahu administration hope sell to their backers in West to recognise ethinc cleansing Gaza and take more Palestinian land. It is simply land grabling.

Well lets see how this all Western Younger Gen incresing voice on Palestinian side can matter or not. We all now Israel don't care anyone voices outside from West, especially US and UK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
UN doesn't have the authority to force any one unless support by Big 5. If they have, if their authority can be followed by all 5 big power on this matter, then Israel already being force to leave occupied Palestine, and back to pre 67. Of course 5 big power rarely has agreed on much of thing, especially in ME. However like it or not UN is the only global body that can be use as International talk.

So Israel can talk tough, because 2 of Big 5 always support Israel. However it is different on talking about displacement of Israeli settlers in Palestinian land, and displacement of Palestinian from within their Internationaly recognise border. Israel plan just a plan Netanyahu administration hope sell to their backers in West to recognise ethinc cleansing Gaza and take more Palestinian land. It is simply land grabling.

Well lets see how this all Western Younger Gen incresing voice on Palestinian side can matter or not. We all now Israel don't care anyone voices outside from West, especially US and UK.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Does the UN have authority over Israel and can therefore impose certain conditions upon both sides? Or does it not have said authority, and therefore irrelevant to this topic?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It intentionally ignores the fact that the vast majority of confirmed Israeli casualties are civilians, and the vast majority of confirmed Palestinian casualties are militants.
Can you provide some context on this statement? I notice you use "confirmed" as a qualifier. What does that mean in this case? Do confirmed deaths constitute a majority of casualties? Are they a representative sampling that we can use to extrapolate? How do we know most of them are militants?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Does the UN have authority over Israel and can therefore impose certain conditions upon both sides? Or does it not have said authority, and therefore irrelevant to this topic?
The "UN" is a very vague entity, or to be more precise not an entity at all but rather an umbrella under which entities operate. It has authority over countries to the extent that countries have voluntarily surrendered part of their sovereignty through bilateral and multi-lateral agreements. One such agreement is the UN Charter, and being a UN member means being subjected to the authority of the security council. So if the UN Security Council were to pass a binding resolution, it could force Israel to do very many things. Leaving aside the impracticality of this for political reasons, even if a particular UN entity doesn't have authority to impose conditions, this doesn't make them irrelevant. Public opinion matters, and the way other countries act is often influenced if not determined by non-binding statements or positions taken by various entities operating under the UN umbrella. I understand why you would prefer to disregard them, but I think this would be a mistake.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Can you provide some context on this statement? I notice you use "confirmed" as a qualifier. What does that mean in this case? Do confirmed deaths constitute a majority of casualties? Are they a representative sampling that we can use to extrapolate? How do we know most of them are militants?
There are several types of Palestinian "casualties":
1. Those Israel claims, and killed in Israel.
2. Those Israel claims, and killed in Gaza.
3. Those Hamas claims, and killed in Israel.
4. Those Hamas claims, and killed in Gaza.
5. Footage from Gaza.

Other claims, for example the UN agencies as well as MSM are either far too partial or are derived from any of the above.

In past wars Hamas was known to inflate civilian casualties and downplay its own casualties. In this war, that's no longer the case. Instead, Hamas does not admit any casualties of its own, and classifies all casualties as civilians. Furthermore, we have witnessed instances where Hamas has extremely inflated civilian casualties. And finally, many casualty faking attempts were uncovered.
Therefore unless Hamas show a body that is verifiably dead, we cannot take their word for anything. This leaves us with categories 1, 2, and 5.

Category 1 is the easiest to verify. IDF, press, and Israeli civilians, released plenty of footage of Hamas terrorists being hunted down and killed. Furthermore, in my memory, Israel and the IDF have no record of lying about own or enemy casualties. Beyond that, in cases of unverified casualties, Israel conducts forensic studies before making conclusively announcing numbers and identities.

Category 1:
This article quotes the Israeli MoD saying 1,500 bodies of terrorists were found and identified in Israel. As of the writing of this article, hundreds of casualties from both sides were unidentified, however the methods of killing employed by both sides mean Palestinian casualties were much easier to identify as none were burnt to a crisp.

Category 2:
Further, we have claims of casualties units inflicted in combat in Gaza. For example, the 162th armored division is said to have killed 1,000 Hamas combatants since the beginning of the war.

Category 5:
With electricity and internet connectivity in Gaza low and mostly accessible to Hamas in the first place, a sizable amount of footage that comes out is bound to be fake. Catching every bit of footage from Gaza is probably beyond the capabilities of a single mortal, but we can see from the footage we do catch that many videos are viral rather than whatever we manage to catch at the moment, and many show individual casualties. Finally, there is no way to tell whether a casualty is a civilian or Hamas unless it is a woman or a child under 14. Example of a fake:

Of these categories, as I said, category 1 is easiest to verify and most reliable and there are 1,500 claimed Hamas casualties. Category 2 is somewhat reliable but only to an extent. Soldiers do need to try and confirm their kills to understand whether the area is clear. However we cannot assume that they confirm these casualties, and it isn't certain that they have the tools to sufficiently reliable tell between a combatant and a non-combatant.
162th is not the only unit inside, there are multiple divisions including the 36th and elements from the 98th and other divisions. If we go safe and apply a healthy amount of caution, we can say it's in the high hundreds to low thousands. Hamas's reported strength in northern Gaza and Gaza City are 5,500 and 9,000 combatants respectively. It is presumed that many have escaped to the south.

So categories 1 and 2 give us a very high certainty for 1,500 Hamas casualties and high certainty for at least several hundred more Hamas combatants up to a low several thousand. Category 5 gives us gives us a low certainty and low ability to classify casualties, in the region of hundreds to potentially low thousands. Therefore I conclude that the majority of "confirmed" Palestinian casualties are Hamas.

Israeli casualties are reported by Israeli authorities to be in the region of 1,100 civilians and 300 military, roughly, on October 7th. Since then casualties in Gaza were reportedly in the low tens, current number at 46.

Perhaps the word "confirmed" is loosely applied here, as human casualties are nearly impossible to visually verify in numbers without heavy input from a state agency.

The "UN" is a very vague entity, or to be more precise not an entity at all but rather an umbrella under which entities operate. It has authority over countries to the extent that countries have voluntarily surrendered part of their sovereignty through bilateral and multi-lateral agreements. One such agreement is the UN Charter, and being a UN member means being subjected to the authority of the security council. So if the UN Security Council were to pass a binding resolution, it could force Israel to do very many things. Leaving aside the impracticality of this for political reasons, even if a particular UN entity doesn't have authority to impose conditions, this doesn't make them irrelevant. Public opinion matters, and the way other countries act is often influenced if not determined by non-binding statements or positions taken by various entities operating under the UN umbrella. I understand why you would prefer to disregard them, but I think this would be a mistake.
It is true that it is agency-specific. The UNSC is arguably the primary and only truly relevant and permanent agency in the UN. However as of yet, no binding resolution has actually directed Israel to return to 1967 (actually 1949) borders, let alone imposed any specific terms on any party and certainly not via unilateral action.

The UN had a chance to be a moral authority but its structure has largely prevented it from it. Being a truly democratic body with a majority of non-democratic, non-liberal members, it has become a non-liberal entity in itself that allows said authoritarian regimes to use it as a platform. This situation has persisted for so long that although many respect the UN enough to attend its forums, they certainly do not give them much weight.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Does the UN have authority over Israel and can therefore impose certain conditions upon both sides? Or does it not have said authority, and therefore irrelevant to this topic?
The UNSC is arguably the primary and only truly relevant and permanent agency in the UN.
UN doesn't have the authority to force any one unless support by Big 5.
I can understand why you say UN is irrelevant. You are also clearly understand that in UN what matter most is UNSC. However as I have point out, only matter if all Big 5 support that UNSC resolution. UNSC has almost has no big 5 unanimous resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine. Thus no power of authority come out regarding Israel.

So from Israeli point of view, it is see UN is irrelevant. Well off course as long as Israel knows at least couple of Big 5 votes will always back any Israel administration no matter what. However that's also as long as US and UK keep backing Israel, and no significant changes in US and UK domestic politics related to Israel.

Israel-Recognition-Map-2023.jpgRecognition-of-Palestine-Map.jpg

Put it this maps, as also shown that what Internationally recognise as Palestine teritorial is the Pre 67 border. So you can say whatever you want on that Pre 67 border, but it is not going to change the fact, that's what Internationally recognized as State of Palestine border.

Israel off course can disregarded those countries that recognize Palestine, as long as US, UK and most of Western world still not recognize Palestinian. Question will be, Is Isreal very sure that the position will not change ? Especially if younger generations in West position on Palestinians begin to change? Is Israel only believe that changes only as flukes, that will not going to be matter on overall grand political standing of US and Most Euro Zone?

Will see about that. Athough as the map shown, the ones that recognizing the Blue begin to change, and recognizing the Green practically still the same. Again for Israel so far it's seems not matter, as long as the Blue still recognize by countries that matter for Israel.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
@Big_Zucchini did I ever put international recognition going to matter much on event in the ground. I already say recognition only matters if comes from countries that matter for Israel survival. Put that maps for two thing:

1. Shown Pre 67 border is the internationaly recognise one on Palestine state,
2. For Israel all that matters is whose recognise them, which is US and West.

Just dont expect anyone else outside US and collective West going to buy Israel explanation. Question is right now after all this, will the domestics from countries that matter for Israel will change or not. Because that's what Israel can relied on Internationaly.

As Taiwan as you put them as comparison, there're two things to remember on Taiwan. Those who recognise them as sovereign country and those who recognise them as economics entity. Later one that matter for Taiwan as it is open them to Internasional partner. On that part they have more recognition as trading partner then Israel. The main similar thing Taiwan and Israel has is US support. That what you should use as comparison on Taiwan and Israel.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
@Ananda Is it really relevant to debate what the "international" community wants? "International community" is a loose term to begin with, and the large economical and technological bloc - the west, does support it not only politically but as its frontier region, similar to Ukraine. There is also a big difference between empty words and actual policies.
There's no need of Displacement, you just get out and leave Palestinian land. Back to pre 67 border. Off course any Israeli who never think they are occupier will see this as defeat and giving up land.
So now that we established the international community is neither united on this nor has any authority or will to act, and that any specific choice of borders is entirely arbitrary at this point, what is the point of your assertion that Israelis should just pack up and leave again?

A short look at the geography and demography shows us that not only is this not feasible, but it will ultimately lead to more wars, more deaths, and honestly it makes me doubt whether anyone supporting a 2 state solution based on the pre-67 borders in 2023 even has any pro-Palestinian sentiment.

This is a map created by CaspianReport (from his Youtube channel). In red and orange are the coastal plain and Galilee respectively, which together hold almost the entire Israeli population.

1700036169964.png

1700034782204.png

These illustrate just how indefensible Israel's geography and population centers are, and why in the absence of a European mindset, Israel is simply not going to accept any proposal or any arrangement that ignores the reality on the ground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
That's a lot of young and healthy, military age men:

BBC translates IDF report as "IDF targeted medical teams and arabic speakers".
Actual translation: "IDF included medical teams and arabic speakers".

Majority hear the first report, not the apology. That is how disinformation is born.



IDF combat units delivered aid to Shifa hospital:
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Is it really relevant to debate what the "international" community wants? "International community" is a loose term to begin with, and the large economical and technological bloc - the west, does support it not only politically but as its frontier region, similar to Ukraine. There is also a big difference between empty words and actual policies.
Well we are not living alone. Like I said, Israel can disregard most of International communities as they are not matter directly to Israel well being. However can Israel disregard the International that matter to Israel? Especially US?

How much US policies toward Israel can be influenced by other nations is very debatable. However the domestic really can change that. How much US domestics going to be change by International communities also debeatable. Recent developments shown younger US are more aware on International situation compare to older ones.

Disregard International communities is not wise, as it is interconnected. That's Israel choices though. That's what my post actually point out. Can Israel really believe that the countries that matter to Israel (US and Collective West) will always support Israel no matter what (as historic so far shown)?

These illustrate just how indefensible Israel's geography and population centers are, and why in the absence of a European mindset, Israel is simply not going to accept any proposal or any arrangement that ignores the reality on the ground.
Well that's what I have been saying all along. The choices is mostly with Israel. Whether divorce Palestinian and back to Pre 67 border for two state solution, or absorb them in one state solution. What so far that even in US not accepting is choice of Palestinian relocated outside Gaza and West Bank. That's choice so far mostly only Israel dream.

Nobody going to accept them, no Arab Neighbors and certainly no Western Nations. Cause all knows it is make them complicit on ethnic cleansing. Israel can disregard most of the World, but come on be realistic, can Israel disregard US on this? So far except some minor Republican candidate, no one in Republican or Democrats accept openly relocating Palestinian from their land. Not even Trump.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
The US disengaged from the region and currently inputs the bare minimum to maintain relations with Israel and economical partners and prevent a regional collapse.
Europe is interested in the region only for energy imports.
Arabs are hardly interested either in the Palestinians or anything beyond the middle east.
Everyone else is only interested in oil like Europe.

This means Israel is alone in its decision making with the Palestinians.
And since the Palestinians have pretty much cornered Israel and left it with very little and very problematic choices, that will guide Israel in dealing with the Gaza problem. Not nations that are disinterested in the region in the first place.

Other western nations may react in different ways but in the end 90% of that is lip service to their local immigrant populations and the Arab world from whom they buy oil.
As long as there is no drastic change in Israel, the west understands that its interests align with Israel. Any deviation from that would be part of a larger self destructive trend.
 
Top