I think the total number killed by Hamas rockets EVER is like 30 to 50. Might be a little off. It’s more about draining Israel’s money and putting up a show than anything else.

Hamas’s cited reason was that Israel was demanding female soldiers, while the terms of the “pause” dictated the exchange of civilians. It seemed like Israel simply wanted an excuse to continue bombing.

let’s be honest it’s because all the rape and torture would make their propaganda war tricky

Let’s be honest about this having no substantiation at present and being based on Israeli and U.S. State Dept propaganda. Honestly it’s disgusting how quickly people will resort to insinuations like this.

What’s the standard for this in the U.S.? It reaches only as far up the ladder as anyone can definitively prove. Abu Gharib saw like, what, a lieutenant fired or something. But when it’s “the enemy”, all of a sudden we assume by default the decision came from the highest levels, and it’s carte blanche to wipe out 2.5 million people living in a giant concentration camp, in a supposed attempt to do regime change.

Israel doesn’t care about their citizens, they’re carpet bombing Gaza and flooding tunnels they know the hostages are in. They had the option to just do a hostage exchange since day one. This is some mixture of annexation and Netanyahu trying to hold on to power.

It might be time for Israel to agree with the hostage exchange Hamas put forward a bunch of times and stop genociding the civilian population of Gaza.

Hamas killed 1200 with about 500 to 600 civilian deaths

Minus a few hundred Israel killed with “friendly fire”.

Yes, the Wikipedia article you’re quoting goes on to state:

On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort.[24] Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt’s military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy.

You can shut up now tbph. Not responding further.

What’s the specific claim you’re making? Israel did in fact start that war, with a “preemptive” air raid meant to cripple Egypt’s air force. And the political history of the region doesn’t abrogate the right of its long-established inhabitants to the land - this is an Israeli propaganda talking point.

They did, that’s why it’s illegal now.

It’s not unlawful to take land during a war. It’s just shitty, in most instances.

It is illegal to take land during a war. Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation

Hamas is running a government too, so I guess they’re not either. Problem solved everyone, Israel can go home now.

This is annoying.

How many beheadings have there been, versus the number of Muslim people who have ever lived?

This brilliant song, for anyone that struggles with literary interpretation, is basically a juxtaposition of childhood innocence, the careless attitude towards mass civilian deaths overseas caused by Western imperialism, and the monetization of those strategies by those in power, to illustrate the psychotic and fractured nature of Western psychology in regard to Western responsibility for atrocities and global conflict.

The video suggested that they coulda mighta maybe planted evidence to disguise war crimes.

It’s not just rearranged, it’s different stuff.

Well, first off, apologies for writing an essay in this comment, but I did a deep dive checking all my facts here.

On 26 May Nasser declared, “The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.”

So, right off the bat, simply pointing to a seemingly offensive intent does not enter a “preemptive war” into a legal grey area under international law. The UN Charter (Article 2 (4)) simply prohibits the initiation of armed conflict, absent a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an enforcement action.

Second, this is naturally a huge oversimplification to portray the origins of the conflict as “preemptive defensive attack”. As you’ll typically find with this kind of “let’s destroy Israel for no reason!” rationale being painted over Arab countries.

The actual origin of the conflict goes back to the mid 1950s, with the Suez Crisis. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956, prompting Western powers to try to find a way to unseat Nasser. Israel invaded the Sinai on Oct 29 1956 - the UN Security Council convened the next day, US submitted a draft resolution calling for Israel to withdraw behind the 1949 armistice lines, which Britain and France vetoed and then sent in an air attack the next day. Security Council passed resolution 119, which called for an emergency special session of the UN GA, which passed resolution 997 (ES-I), calling for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of all forces behind the 1949 armistice lines, arms embargo, and the reopening of the Suez Canal. Soon after, they passed resolution 1001, establishing the UNEF force to perform peacekeeping throughout the Sinai, prompting the withdrawal of British and French forces by the end of the year, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces by March 1957. This was the source of the general tension prior to the 1967 war - the “tripartite conspiracy” between Britain, France and Israel, to coerce control of the Suez Canal via an invasion of the Sinai.

Going into the 1960s - the first key event is Israel invading Jordan in the Samu Incident, on Nov 13 1966 (and, as usual, they destroyed everyone’s houses in the village of Samu). Yitzhak Rabin, then the Chief of General Staff in Israel, declared “the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government” in response to the Ba’ath party coming into power in Syria and sponsoring guerilla Palestinian groups attacking Israel. Israel shot down 6 MIG-21s from the Syrian Air Force on April 7th. Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister, attested to a reporter that they were purposefully instigating clashes on the Syrian border basically by having a tractor cross territorial lines until troops on the other side became aggravated. An apparently false report was delivered on May 13 to Nasser from the USSR, that Israel had been amassing its army on the Syrian border, and the next day he ordered the troop movement into the Sinai, on May 13/14. All these things indicated a sense that Israel was escalating hostilities and prompted a defensive troop movement from Egypt, and Nasser’s vice president requested the UNEF peacekeeping force evacuate in the case of hostilities breaking out. Israeli planes, soon after (May 17/18), had fired warning shots and “buzzed” a UNEF plane to attempt to force it to land inside Israel, claiming it had violated Israel’s air space (despite that it was flying within Egyptian territory, from El Arish to Gaza). At this point, on May 23, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran on its eastern border to Israeli ships, a contentious closure that the U.S. maintained was illegal, but predicated on agreements (namely this) Egypt was not yet a party to (see also this re: the legality) - and Nasser suggested adjudicating the issue in the ICC. Egyptian radio was publicly announcing during this general period whole period that they were on “maximum alert” for an Israeli attack. The “Waiting period”, the article you linked, describes exactly that - Egypt moved its troops into a defensive position and waited for three weeks in anticipation of an Israeli attack, which materialized as Operation Focus, a surprise attack on the air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the first clear act of hostilities.

To provide some key quotes to this point:

In another 1972 interview, Mordechai Bentov, a former member of the Israeli ruling coalition during the June war, stated: “This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived and then elaborated on afterwards to justify the annexation of new Arab territories.”

Despite these moves by Nasser, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography “Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war”. James Reston of the New York Times wrote from Cairo on June 4th that: “Cairo does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war.” In 1968 Yitzak Rabin said: “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” In 1982, Israeli Prime Minister Begin admitted: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Reinforcing the position that Egypt was not prepared for war with Israel, Egypt then had 50,000 of its crack troops tied down in Yemen.

Some sources: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-six-day-war-and-a-possible-resolution/

https://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/0345-1967-06-KS-a-EYJ.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn3RUZsaPmg&t=1s

And yet they still happen. Expecting lands and access to them to be granted to an enemy while they remain belligerent is absurd.

I say again, annexation of land is a violation of international law, either in an offensive or defensive war. It is not a “grant”, it’s that state’s land to begin with.

Differentiate the state of Israel - a religious and ethnic supremacist state from its beginning, by definition - and the inhabitants of the state. Getting tired of that little rhetorical trick where disagreeing with a state actively committing a genocide is supposed to make you sound “antisemitic”.

Do you not see the contradiction in claiming that the “military industrial complex” owns the pool of all the politicians, but then refusing to vote outside that pool?

Dems ran Hillary Clinton in '16 - a horrifying, war mongering two-face, basically. What was the reaction of the GOP? Elect Trump. He seemed reasonable to them compared to her. They think it’s “lesser of two evils” too. I would argue that the horrible candidates across the aisle guarantee our slide towards fascism and even the theocracy the GOP is pushing.

The concern is exactly the opposite. Israel has been procedurally annexing Palestinian land for decades - the concern, if anything, is that a one state solution would abrogate the rights of Palestinians, because that’s precisely what Israel has done with annexations repeatedly in the past. It’s in fact a requirement to abolish the religious/ethnic supremacism inherent in the Israeli state, in which political parties are even banned from even opposing a Jewish nationalist identity (the 2018 “nation-state” law), and start from scratch with a constitution that actually guarantees equal rights across ethnic groups, in order to achieve equal rights in the region, barring something like the bottom half of Israel being given up to allow a contiguous, fully independent state between Gaza and the West Bank.

The problem most of you aren’t dealing with is that Israel was founded fairly recently (75 years) on the ethnic cleansing/expulsion of the Palestinian population. These endless repeated claims about “Israel’s right to exist”, “Israel’s right to defense”, “Israel’s right to sovereignty” - many of them aren’t even true under international law in the first place, and they ignore the problem that the land they currently claim was unlawfully obtained, and that the people it was stolen who still live under Israeli rule have been oppressed, starved, murdered, poisoned, etc. for decades, under a dehumanizing system of apartheid. There is no just solution attainable in this conflict without concessions from Israel.