The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg
> The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine:
The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.
Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.
> The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.
I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties. There are accusations of Israel committing war crimes. Recently, an independent investigation into the killing of a Reuters journalist suggested that it was a deliberate attack by the IDF on civilians, constituting a war crime. They told Palestinians to go south to be safe and then they bombed them there. Responding to atrocities from 7th of October with further atrocities is not justifiable. The strategy to eradicate Hamas might be counterproductive, potentially leading to the creation of more militants than are eliminated, due to the civilian casualties caused.
> Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas, but there has been a loss of world support due to the methods employed. Even the US, as indicated by Blinken either today or yesterday, has stated that there are insufficient efforts being made to protect civilian lives and that Israel is saying one thing but the reality and numbers coming from Gaza says something different.
> No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas
We’ve seen people do just that. Not only that, but also open expressions of support for Hamas and its actions.
I also don’t think it’s possible for Israel to stop attacks until all the people kidnapped by Hamas are returned, rescued, or confirmed dead. Hamas isn’t returning them, because forcing Israel into continued war is its most effective weapon in the war for international sympathy.
The part about eradicating Hamas is clearly pure propaganda though. Doing that would require killing their leaders who sit comfortably in Turkey, Lebanon and Qatar.
> I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.
> I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties.
The point under discussion above is the fact that the Arabs rejected the borders of this proposed Arab state. So they started a war and the borders were changed. That's the risk they took and lost. It is disingenuous to claim that Israelis stole Arab land at this point - the Arabs tried to steal land and lost.
In an ideal world what you’re saying would be true. Hamas could be eradicated without civilian casualties. No children would get hurt.
But you’re not proposing an alternative — and part of the reason is that Hamas has made it explicitly hard to do so.
Is the verdict that any territory that is sufficiently populated can’t be retaliated against?
> this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg
1. The geographical area of Palestine, also often called The Holy Land among other names, that was not inhabited by Jews.
2. The area that the UN Partition Plan designated for an Arab state.
3. The areas that the Palestinian Authority has both civil and military control over.
The problem with the first definition is obvious: It displays a geographical area with a racial modifier. That would be like showing a map of France with all the areas where French people live highlighted, then assuming that 100% of the remaining areas are "Immigrant Land". In reality, the far majority of the land was not settled by Jews nor Arabs in time frame of this map - it was so empty that the Ottomans created laws specifically to increase both Arab and Jewish settlement in the area, they didn't care so long as the taxes were paid.
The UN Partition Plan was not perfect, but it for the most part proposed an Arab state in the areas that were Arab majority, and a Jewish state in the areas with a Jewish majority. The Arabs rejected this plan in an attempt to conquer more land - so complaining that the borders changed from these borders is disingenuous. The Arabs started a war (well, more than one) with the specific intent of changing these borders.
The map in 1946 is false, since all of it was British, zero of it was Arab or Jewish.
The UN plan never happened.
The 1967 map pretends like there was a country "Palestine" when there never has been.
And the 2010 map is just straight up fiction.
The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine.
History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.
The aforementioned organization in no way represents “the majority of the world” or “the rest of the world”; it makes a joke out of the values of freedom and human rights.