Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

You head off there to your mandatory afternoon prayers in your local mosque. I won't be going because I'm a rebel and I'm defying the new Sharia laws forcing me to go. I'm willing to martyr myself for the cause.

Wish me luck everyone!!!

In your mind, what is the relevance of an Afghan man stabbing people in Germany, to a discussion on whether it is ok for zionists to kill kids in Palestine? I'm genuinely fascinated to know. How do you make the connection in your mind?

Slander how? What does your insane ramblings have to do with Israel and Palestine? What are you trying to prove with your data?

Mod Edit: Warning issued for uncivil posting

Well, actually, I haven't opposed trade sanctions on the "Occupied Territories" or even on Israel. I have opposed unilateral Irish-only trade sanctions. I have previously pointed out that trade is an EU competence, hence the EU Regulation you refer to and if Ireland wants trade sanctions on Israel, we should be proposing that at EU level, instead of bringing down everything on ourselves.

You appear to be another of those who have difficulty distinguishing between jews and zionists.

Come back when you can see the difference, and we may be able to have a discussion.

It is strange how these posters react when you bring the discussion outside their comfort zone.

They are uncomfortable with facts, and very very uncomfortable with comparisons because these are more difficult to deal with. As a result, we keep seeing hissy fits from them.

Keep up the good work.

I didn't say that and you know I didn't.

There's only one target in all this. It's the people who commit genocide and their apologists.

I've discussed this with some rational supporters of Palestine in person, and they've admitted that, deep down, they know Israel is not guilty.

I love generalisations, there is nothing specific to deal with.

1. What is Israel not guilty of? Genocide? War crimes? Murdering men, women, children, babies? Destroying Gaza? Tulkarm? Jenin? Settling somebody else's land and imposing apartheid on the natives? Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes and refusing to allow them to return? Robbing property from the native people? Dropping bombs on tents? Shooting people in the head/heart in cold blood? Incinerating their own citizens? Raping, torturing and starving prisoners? I could keep going, but you could start with that list.
2. "deep down"? what is that supposed to mean? After they've been tortured maybe?
3. What does a rational supporter of Palestine even mean? Or do you mean that I and everyone else who has questioned Israel's actions is somehow irrational?

So many crimes, it may be possible to find one crime Israel hasn't committed and is not guilty of.

I presume a number of countries will pay for the rebuild. It would be in israels best interest not to have the gazans living in poverty.

To be honest in alot of your posts you don't sound like you are Irish, you seem have alot of distate for this country.

It's called war. Buildings get blown up, people get killed, and infrastructure gets destroyed. It's sad, but it happens. How do you know that the money you have donated will not end up in the hands of Hamas? How would you feel if it did?

Who is going to manage the re-build though? Money won't be an issue. Israel has never wanted to have Gazans living in poverty. They've been offered billions in investment over the years. They has successfully facilitated the entry of over 1.3 million tons of aid to Gaza within the last 15 months. The amount of money that has been pumped into Gaza over the years is ridiculous.

Distaste, how so? I am Irish. I can assure you of that. Ireland as a country has had a awful lot to say about Palestine, Gaza and Israel. I am simply saying that given how passionate Ireland is about Palestine, it should take an active part in the regeneration of Gaza.

People were protected. They were told to leave before the bombing started. Leaflets were dropped, text messages were sent, and announcements were made before the bombing took place. I've had this argument with plenty of people who are pro-Palestine face-to-face, and they've all admitted it in the end. I have samples of the leaflets and messages, along with their translations, here with me. Sit down and look at the facts yourself. It was a horrific war—I agree with you. I really hope that it is over now. I hope that Hamas does not return to power and that the people of Israel and Gaza can live in peace going forward.

By your rationale, if leaflets were dropped in Tel Aviv telling the inhabitants to get out of there, it would be okay to bomb the city indiscriminately? People would be protected as you say

Doesn't that work both ways though? Surely if someone cannot claim Israel is not committing genocide without a ruling saying the same thing - which is a totally reasonable statement in itself - someone could also say the opposite is valid, that people cannot say Israel is clearly and blatantly committing genocide until the evidence is weighed.

The thread does have people saying both things, but far more commonly expressed is that Israel is definitely committing genocide, with the addition from some that Israel is doing so not based on any military objective (eg complete destruction of Hamas with a cold attitude towards damage to infrastructure and civilian casulties) but rather because it seems to just love murdering and killing.

I don't know if Israel is committing genocide by the way nor claim to know what the ICJ will rule based on the facts and evidence presented/assessed before anyone asks me what I think.

I'm not arguing personally that Israel definitely is not committing genocide, and I don't think the optics are good for Israel by any means, but I also don't believe they are "definitely" doing so, or that they set out on October 8th to commit genocide, as much as they decided that they were going to annihilate Hamas and the people/infrastructure of Gaza could suffer the cost.

Is there justification for 70% of housing stock in Gaza to be damaged or destroyed? It would be impossible to say yes. I also think it is not unreasonable when people note that Israel does make some effort to limit casulties with advance warnings, notifications, broadcasts, leaflet drops, and other forms of communication ordering people to evacuate.

It gets said regularly that Israel is just indiscriminately bombing everyone and everything, with the express aim of killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians. Gaza is an incredibly densely populated urban area and if that were even partially true the death toll would be probably ten times higher than it is.

I do think it can be argued without question that Israel's acceptance of damage to infrastructure or human cost to achieve the elimination of one target is unacceptable to most people, I have no problem with such an argument.

Is Israel committing war crimes? I would imagine inevitably. Is Israel guilty of genocide? I would be far less convinced. It remains to be seen what the ICJ will rule, in the meantime I say both opinions have merit and I think people should be allowed to either freely express either opinion, within reason.

If it's OK for people to say Israel are most certainly committing genocide, it's OK for people to say Israel are not committing genocide, provided there's a logical, reasoned debate around it rather than unfounded insults on the persons character and/or motives.

I see zero correlation for example between thinking that Israel is committing genocide and support for Hamas. I am sure there could be some overlap but what I'm saying is that I would say it is impossible to know someone's stance on Hamas simply from them expressing an opinion that Israel is committing genocide.

But for some on here, if you think Israel is not specifically committing genocide, even if you think what they're doing is questionable at best and abhorrent at worst, you are still labelled a Zionist, a genocide supporter/advocate/enthusiast, and that is not good faith or sincere debate, that is trying to create an echo chamber and make a complex situation.

As you say, the ICJ has issued no ruling, and until it does, either both opinions are acceptable provided there's a reasonable discussion and debate, or neither are.