Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

The end of Gaza's most beautiful neighbourhood (bbc.co.uk)


Around noon on Friday 20 October, the residents of the upscale Gazan neighbourhood of al-Zahra stood in front of the rubble and dust that used to be their homes.

Fridays were supposed to be special: the Islamic day of prayer marks the start of the weekend and in al-Zahra it meant falafel and hummus, coffee and tea, all served in spacious family apartments or villas by the Mediterranean Sea. Residents here knew they were luckier than most in Gaza.

But overnight, Israeli bombs had flattened 25 apartment blocks, home to many hundreds of people. Israel had been bombing Gaza for days in response to the Hamas attacks of 7 October, but al-Zahra had not been hit until now.

Some of those who lived here - among them doctors, lawyers, academics, fashion designers and entrepreneurs - tried to stay and survive in the ruins, but most packed up what little they could salvage and dispersed across the Gaza Strip.

Hana Hussen, who grew up in al-Zahra, followed the news with horror from hundreds of miles away in Turkey, where she had moved two years ago. In a hurried phone call that day, she rang her family to check they were safe.

She told them she loved them.

Then the line went dead.
 
calodo2003 said:
'Let it play out.' Christ...

Click to expand...

I mean, not to credit him, but at least his stance is an honest one. Contrast that to Biden who's administration is essentially mirroring the same approach, albeit coating it with fabricated concern, all while continuing to rubbish any notion of a ceasefire.
 
Kaos said:
I mean, not to credit him, but at least his stance is an honest one. Contrast that to Biden who's administration is essentially mirroring the same approach, albeit coating it with fabricated concern, all while continuing to rubbish any notion of a ceasefire.
Click to expand...
There is that.

Here's the full quote...

 
calodo2003 said:
There is that.

Here's the full quote...

Click to expand...

I mean, I feel dirty again giving him any semblance of credit, but that's a more balanced take than 'Israel has the right to defend itself, we stand 100% with our Israeli allies'. Even acknowledging it as a two way street is some form of refreshing breakaway from even the Dem stance. For starters he's acknowledging the human catastrophe in Gaza, something even his Democratic compatriots struggle to empathise or even acknowledge.
 


Israel has a right to defend itself.

Hamas uses human shields.

Israel targets Hamas military sites.
 
After not knowing a lot of stuff about this at the start of these events but ive made the following observation, please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect.

Why would Israel commit to a 2 state solution if the 2nd state could just elect a wholly Hamas government and then be at the mercy from attacks on them by them in perpetuity, due to this without breaking or demolishing Hamas there is no real way forward for peace and a 2 state solution in the area because whats the incentive for this on Israels part, is there some kind of expectation they should allow this happen because they would be idiotic to do this.
 
Gavinb33 said:
After not knowing a lot of stuff about this at the start of these events but ive made the following observation, please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect.

Why would Israel commit to a 2 state solution if the 2nd state could just elect a wholly Hamas government and then be at the mercy from attacks on them by them in perpetuity, due to this without breaking or demolishing Hamas there is no real way forward for peace and a 2 state solution in the area because whats the incentive for this on Israels part, is there some kind of expectation they should allow this happen because they would be idiotic to do this.
Click to expand...

Israel were an apartheid state and against a 2 state solution decades before Hamas was created, Hamas is the least supported group among palestinians and Israel is partially led by religious and zionist extremists who on average kill and injure more palestinians than palestinians kill or injure israeli.

I don't know if it answers your questions but that's the wider context.
 
Gavinb33 said:
After not knowing a lot of stuff about this at the start of these events but ive made the following observation, please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect.

Why would Israel commit to a 2 state solution if the 2nd state could just elect a wholly Hamas government and then be at the mercy from attacks on them by them in perpetuity, due to this without breaking or demolishing Hamas there is no real way forward for peace and a 2 state solution in the area because whats the incentive for this on Israels part, is there some kind of expectation they should allow this happen because they would be idiotic to do this.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, that is a hypothetical. Maybe there won't be a wholly Hamas government hellbent on attacking Israel. But we won't find out if there aren't 2 states.

So the argument in itself still isn't an argument against a 2 state solution.

Also, for a 2 state solution to happen there'll obviously be negotiations on borders, governance, security and such.
 
Gavinb33 said:
After not knowing a lot of stuff about this at the start of these events but ive made the following observation, please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect.

Why would Israel commit to a 2 state solution if the 2nd state could just elect a wholly Hamas government and then be at the mercy from attacks on them by them in perpetuity, due to this without breaking or demolishing Hamas there is no real way forward for peace and a 2 state solution in the area because whats the incentive for this on Israels part, is there some kind of expectation they should allow this happen because they would be idiotic to do this.
Click to expand...
Hamas support is rooted in the fact that they're fighting the oppressor. If the oppressor stopped oppressing, Hamas would quickly find themselves obsolete.
 
Gavinb33 said:
Why would Israel commit to a 2 state solution if the 2nd state could just elect a wholly Hamas government and then be at the mercy from attacks on them by them in perpetuity, due to this without breaking or demolishing Hamas there is no real way forward for peace and a 2 state solution in the area because whats the incentive for this on Israels part, is there some kind of expectation they should allow this happen because they would be idiotic to do this.
Click to expand...

The unspoken assumption in your argument is that if Hamas is in charge of a nation they will continue attacking Israel in perpetuity for reasons that are not explained. I don't think everyone would agree with that assumption.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
That was the specific incident that the Post article about "Israel's threshold for civilian casualties" focused on.

It's clear that when you go past a certain point, "having a high threshold of acceptable civilian deaths" is not very different than "intentionally killing civilians."
Click to expand...

Yep, personally for me they're one and the same.

I'd find it very hard to justify any civilian deaths in an effort to kill members of Hamas. But once they get to the stage where they're killing hundreds in the hope they might get one guy, sorry there's no moral justification for that.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
The unspoken assumption in your argument is that if Hamas is in charge of a nation they will continue attacking Israel in perpetuity for reasons that are not explained. I don't think everyone would agree with that assumption.
Click to expand...

It is a wise assumption that is grounded in truth given that Hamas leadership continue to deny Israel's very right to exist. So not only would they never be allowed to be in charge of a nation neighboring Israel, but even if such a delusionally far fetched scenario were to somehow happen, they would by definition not do so peacefully. All of which is of course a moot point given they are about to go out of business.
 
Gavinb33 said:
After not knowing a lot of stuff about this at the start of these events but ive made the following observation, please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect.

Why would Israel commit to a 2 state solution if the 2nd state could just elect a wholly Hamas government and then be at the mercy from attacks on them by them in perpetuity, due to this without breaking or demolishing Hamas there is no real way forward for peace and a 2 state solution in the area because whats the incentive for this on Israels part, is there some kind of expectation they should allow this happen because they would be idiotic to do this.
Click to expand...

The short answer is they wouldn't. Because they are the lopsidedly more powerful party in the dispute, they would never put themselves in a situation where their security would be affected by the aspirational prowess of an international terrorist organization that doesn't even represent a nation state, given that Palestinian factions haven been split for decades.
 
Raoul said:
It is a wise assumption that is grounded in truth given that Hamas leadership continue to deny Israel's very right to exist. So not only would they never be allowed to be in charge of a nation neighboring Israel, but even if such a delusionally far fetched scenario were to somehow happen, they would by definition not do so peacefully. All of which is of course a moot point given they are about to go out of business.
Click to expand...
How is that any different to the current iteration of the Israeli government? We have Bibi showing photos of 'Greater Israel' including Gaza and the WB publicly, the government rhetoric is openly talking of either the forced displacement of Gaza (whilst atomising the WB), plus their resistance to any two state solution over the last few decades.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
The unspoken assumption in your argument is that if Hamas is in charge of a nation they will continue attacking Israel in perpetuity for reasons that are not explained. I don't think everyone would agree with that assumption.
Click to expand...

My memory is a bit wobbly but wasnt that what a Hamas leader said in a interview a few weeks ago? Essentially that they would reproduce October the 7th untill Israel is no more or something to that effect?

 
The Corinthian said:
How is that any different to the current iteration of the Israeli government? We have Bibi showing photos of 'Greater Israel' including Gaza and the WB publicly, the government rhetoric is openly talking of either the forced displacement of Gaza (whilst atomising the WB), plus their resistance to any two state solution over the last few decades.
Click to expand...

Its not particularly different. They would never do any meaningful business with the other side as long as Hamas is around. At best, they would assuage the status quo indefinitely by maintaining restrictions in Gaza and gradually expanding settlements elsewhere. If Hamas reacts with rockets, then they get an Israeli response until it stops. Rinse and repeat. This was of course an unsustainable status quo given that it had no clear long term objective towards any deals, but the lack of progress did not of course in any way justify or legitimize the attack last month.
 
Gehrman said:
My memory is a bit wobbly but wasnt that what a Hamas leader said in a interview a few weeks ago? Essentially that they would reproduce October the 7th untill Israel is no more or something to that effect?
Click to expand...

People say all kinds of stuff.
 
Gehrman said:
My memory is a bit wobbly but wasnt that what a Hamas leader said in a interview a few weeks ago? Essentially that they would reproduce October the 7th untill Israel is no more or something to that effect?

Click to expand...

And those on the Israeli side have also essentially echoed similar sentiments, albeit phrased less viscerally. The fact is peace isn't possible with either faction at their respective helms. The difference however is one side is trapped in a desperate situation, and the other is being enabled.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
People say all kinds of stuff.
Click to expand...

If you are simultaneously a leader of a governing party and terrorist organisation its pretty damn important what you say in an interview broadcast to the world.
 
Kaos said:
And those on the Israeli side have also essentially echoed similar sentiments, albeit phrased less viscerally. The fact is peace isn't possible with either faction at their respective helms. The difference however is one side is trapped in a desperate situation, and the other is being enabled.
Click to expand...

I wasn't playing the what about Israel game. Just what Hamas leaders have actually said.
 
Gehrman said:
I wasn't playing the what about Israel game. Just what Hamas leaders have actually said.
Click to expand...
Which is fair enough, but its equally important to stress that this talk of annihilation isn't a doctrine unique to one side, which is what certain narratives would have you believe.
 
Kaos said:
Which is fair enough, but its equally important to stress that this talk of annihilation isn't a doctrine unique to one side, which is what certain narratives would have you believe.
Click to expand...

I do agree. And unfortunately i think i the point of no return has beyond reasonable doubt been passed in terms of a 2 state solution or ideas of peacefull coexistence. If Gaza wasnt enough of a hell hole already its going to become sonething even worse.
 
Gehrman said:
If you are simultaneously a leader of a governing party and terrorist organisation its pretty damn important what you say in an interview broadcast to the world.
Click to expand...

Maybe my point wasn't clear.

I said I don't think Hamas would attack Israel "in perpetuity", which is the word the person I was responding to used. "Perpetuity" means indefinitely or forever. I'm talking 50, 100 years from today. I think when you are talking about how to settle Israeli-Palestinian territorial disputes, the nature of that solution (one state, two state, etc.) ought to be based on a long timeframe. In such a long timeframe I don't really think you can be making any assessments about "what will Hamas do."

I also said "for reasons not explained." I think the reason many people have in mind is ideological, i.e. "Hamas rejects the existence of the state of Israel." I know ideology exists, but I do not think it trumps material conditions in perpetuity. Palestine being its own recognized state is an enormous change in material conditions.
 
Raoul said:
Its not particularly different. They would never do any meaningful business with the other side as long as Hamas is around. At best, they would assuage the status quo indefinitely by maintaining restrictions in Gaza and gradually expanding settlements elsewhere. If Hamas reacts with rockets, then they get an Israeli response until it stops. Rinse and repeat. This was of course an unsustainable status quo given that it had no clear long term objective towards any deals, but the lack of progress did not of course in any way justify or legitimize the attack last month.
Click to expand...
I guess the wider point is that Hamas have only really been on the scene for the last 30 years, and only in the form of a elected government for the last 18. We still, however, have Israel being consistently against a two state solution prior to Hamas. If anything, we could say that the Israeli government has been a bigger obstacle to peace in that regard.

Ideally both Hamas, and the Isreali government should be dismantled and replaced with a (international) peacekeeping government that has the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians working / living together with a longer term pluralistic view.
 


"We don't claim to be a news organization." :confused::confused::confused:

So the whole story about there being embedded journalists with Hamas on October 7th was pure disinformation intended to discredit journalists still in Gaza and justify their deaths at the hands of the IDF.
 
The Corinthian said:
I guess the wider point is that Hamas have only really been on the scene for the last 30 years, and only in the form of a elected government for the last 18. We still, however, have Israel being consistently against a two state solution prior to Hamas. If anything, we could say that the Israeli government has been a bigger obstacle to peace in that regard.

Ideally both Hamas, and the Isreali government should be dismantled and replaced with a (international) peacekeeping government that has the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians working / living together with a longer term pluralistic view.
Click to expand...
I think the concern which makes it feel so hopeless is that Hamas could be removed/replaced/destroyed, yet I'd bank on nothing being done after to reel the Israeli hardliners in. If history has taught as anything, its that the Israelis aren't willing to oblige a genuine solution in good-faith, even with a secular Palestinian resistance, and likewise we've seen no historical evidence of the US leaning on them to halt their occupational and colonial aspirations.

All we'd be doing is rolling the clock back 30 years, where it was equally hopeless and desperate for the Palestinians.
 
Sir Matt said:


"We don't claim to be a news organization." :confused::confused::confused:

So the whole story about there being embedded journalists with Hamas on October 7th was pure disinformation intended to discredit journalists still in Gaza and justify their deaths at the hands of the IDF.
Click to expand...


Every damn time but some will swallow any propaganda coming from there which is basically everything they release.
 
Sir Matt said:


"We don't claim to be a news organization." :confused::confused::confused:

So the whole story about there being embedded journalists with Hamas on October 7th was pure disinformation intended to discredit journalists still in Gaza and justify their deaths at the hands of the IDF.
Click to expand...

and one of them has lost their job over it.
 
Of course they don't claim to be a news organization. They are an organization that works directly with the Israeli government.
 
The Corinthian said:
I guess the wider point is that Hamas have only really been on the scene for the last 30 years, and only in the form of a elected government for the last 18. We still, however, have Israel being consistently against a two state solution prior to Hamas. If anything, we could say that the Israeli government has been a bigger obstacle to peace in that regard.

Ideally both Hamas, and the Isreali government should be dismantled and replaced with a (international) peacekeeping government that has the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians working / living together with a longer term pluralistic view.
Click to expand...

Its a bit of a chicken v egg argument isn't it, as the Israelis would obviously respond with their usual talking point of all the times the Palestinian side declined prior deal offers which were far more generous than anything being discussed during the Hamas era. Ultimately this isn't a dispute among two equal sides. Israel, as the far more powerful side, have to be convinced that they are dealing with an opposition partner that isn't fundamentally dedicated to destroying them. Once that is established, it can be used as a foundation from which to proceed back towards negotiations. That was never going to happen with Hamas in the picture, which over time only incentivized the Israelis to drift in the opposite direction through restrictions on Gaza and more WB settlers.
 
Kaos said:
I think the concern which makes it feel so hopeless is that Hamas could be removed/replaced/destroyed, yet I'd bank on nothing being done after to reel the Israeli hardliners in. If history has taught as anything, its that the Israelis aren't willing to oblige a genuine solution in good-faith, even with a secular Palestinian resistance, and likewise we've seen no historical evidence of the US leaning on them to halt their occupational and colonial aspirations.

All we'd be doing is rolling the clock back 30 years, where it was equally hopeless and desperate for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...
I agree totally. There'll be no progress in the situation with this Israeli government.
 
Raoul said:
Its a bit of a chicken v egg argument isn't it, as the Israelis would obviously respond with their usual talking point of all the times the Palestinian side declined prior deal offers which were far more generous than anything being discussed during the Hamas era. Ultimately this isn't a dispute among two equal sides. Israel, as the far more powerful side, have to be convinced that they are dealing with an opposition partner that isn't fundamentally dedicated to destroying them. Once that is established, it can be used as a foundation from which to proceed back towards negotiations. That was never going to happen with Hamas in the picture, which over time only incentivized the Israelis to drift in the opposite direction through restrictions on Gaza and more WB settlers.
Click to expand...
It can't be a chicken vs egg situation though - again, Hamas only appeared on the scene 30 years ago, and as a response to Israel's behaviour and occupation.

Even with Hamas being on the scene - what has stopped Israel working on a solution with the PA for the West Bank? The PA has made no indication that they can't work and live alongside Israel and Israelis. It's the Israelis who are contravening international law by atomising the land there and treating the citizens there as 3rd class citizens.
 
The Corinthian said:
It can't be a chicken vs egg situation though - again, Hamas only appeared on the scene 30 years ago, and as a response to Israel's behaviour and occupation.

Even with Hamas being on the scene - what has stopped Israel working on a solution with the PA for the West Bank? The PA has made no indication that they can't work and live alongside Israel and Israelis. It's the Israelis who are contravening international law by atomising the land there and treating the citizens there as 3rd class citizens.
Click to expand...

Well if you think the objective was a two state solution then the Israelis were never going to have much luck in a fractured construct where one faction is a terrorist organization and the other is quite corrupt, with both violently squabbling amongst themselves in a power struggle. That was obviously never going to result in meaningful progress among any of the parties. And I would include Netanyahu's long tenure during most of the Hamas regime as part of the problem as well.
 
Raoul said:
Well if you think the objective was a two state solution then the Israelis were never going to have much luck in a fractured construct where one faction is a terrorist organization and the other is quite corrupt, with both violently squabbling amongst themselves in a power struggle. That was obviously never going to result in meaningful progress among any of the parties. And I would include Netanyahu's long tenure during most of the Hamas regime as part of the problem as well.
Click to expand...
I think if the objective was peace for Israel and Israelis, they could get halfway there by working with the PA and having an agreed solution for the WB specifically. The optics would all be in Israel's favour as well if they were seen to be working well with the PA, and not Hamas, don't you think?

The reason I don't believe a two state solution, or even a peaceful one for Palestinians has ever been on the cards for Israel is because of their conduct in the WB.

Agree with you on Bibi but I don't think things would change if he wasn't on the scene either although he's undoubtedly made a difficult situation 10x worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.