Heres the vidéo where Netanyahou brags that his strategy is to hurt palestinian (civilians) as hard as possible Into submission, and that hé was negociating the peace accords in Bad faith : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=8997844...

Im not sure what better fits the définition of terrorism for you

At thé end of the day most israelis would be fine with a two state solution. This guy and other religious extremists liké Bennet have taken hostage the israeli people

> Heres the vidéo where Netanyahou brags that his strategy is to hurt palestinian (civilians)

More context: per some video from 2001 according to translation from Turkish regime propaganda broadcaster.

> At thé end of the day most israelis would be fine with a two state solution

Is Hamas Ok with two states?

Israel has repeatedly blocked the 2 state solution. Even Rabin’s stance was “the Palestinians should have something but something less than full statehood”

Israel encouraged Hamas by allowing Qatari support in to Gaza with the intent of keeping Gaza and the West Bank

Finally the Hamas charter was amended and no longer calls for the destruction of Israel.

In any case Israel (with the support of the US) has all the power in this conflict and they are the ones actually killing tens of thousands of innocents no matter what Hamas’ official position is.

> In any case Israel (with the support of the US) has all the power in this conflict and they are the ones actually killing tens of thousands of innocents

What happened on Oct 7 then?

What’s happening in Gaza right now? Who is dropping the bombs? Whose army is in Gaza? What is also happening in the West Bank? What about the border in Lebanon.

True there was a terroristic raid into Israel in which 1200 people lost their lives but the scale of power does not compare AT ALL

I find this line of reasoning very fascinating. Is your only issue that one side has a lot more weapons? If they were roughly equal would what’s happening in Gaza be ok?

where did i say it would be ok?

Do you have a better translation ? Genuinely curious.

Anyway it fits what you can read in more reputable sources such as https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/12/oslo-i... (litteraly written by an osraeli)

> Is Hamas Ok with two states?

No. And some argue thats precisely why Netanyahu helped them get financed to have a scary enemy and play the security card while pursuing a territorial war instead of working for actual peace.

Thats not my opinion. Thats what she israeli left wing is accusing him of : https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.p...

> Is Hamas Ok with two states?

The short answer is "we don't know for sure"; it has repeatedly says it does, but some are skeptical they mean it. In the last 15 years they haven't really been given much opportunity to prove it, so ... we don't know for sure. But I think an evolution similar to the PLO would have been possible (too late now).

But we can ask the same about Israel: is Israel okay with two states? Because "just keep building settlements on the West Bank" doesn't sound much like it, or the way it's treated Gaza over the last 15 years, or tons of other actions over the last 60 years. And several of the religious Zionists now in government and holding several ministerial posts have pretty explicitly said they DON'T support a two-state solution, and have expressed views that at best can be viewed as supportive of ethnic cleansing (before Oct 7).

I'm not sure it's possible to look at what Israel is doing and say it's not terror. So, charitably, I guess you're saying the IDF is not an organization?

Is every country in the world wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g... doesn't have a single country that calls the IDF a terror organization.

Countries are careful about calling other countries terror organisations. That's a weak argument. To convince me, you have to argue that their actions aren't terroristic.

Usually, you can argue that a state's actions aren't "terrorism" because most definitions of "terrorism" involve the requirement that the action is illegal. But saying that the IDF is regularly committing war crimes isn't even controversial at this point. So what exactly separates their illegal actions intended to instil terror from all the other terror organizations?

This response is deranged. Human rights organisation have been criticising Israel for its crimes for a long time, even before this massacre. Hell, just look at the list of UN resolutions condemning Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut...

The only correct thing in your comment is that Hamas is also bad.

Please do research before spreading war crime apologia.

Taiwan isnt a country too? Geopolitics leads to some crazy claims of truth. It couldn't be more clear that there is extreme pressure for states to support Israel, especially due to USA's position. Argument from authority is rightfully considered a logical fallacy

Isn't causing "terror" a part of all wars?

"Shock and awe" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe#Civilian_casua...

It is possible. Now what?

IDF is a real military with rules of engagement and target selection. If you say indiscriminate bombing, no this is not. WW2 and Korean War was.

If this isn't an example of indiscriminate bombing, that's only because Israel is explicitly targeting civilians.

On this scale, isn't it rather genocide?

Even the Pope called them terrorists. They were literally funded by two terrorists organizations (Irgun and Lehi). And over the past 70 years their main occupation has been the terrorizing of the few remaining Palestinians. How more plainly terroristic do you have to be? And now they are here on HN funding posts like yours trying to justify the mass murder of children and women as a form of collective punishment.

Maybe we should call them torturers instead. Maybe that is more fitting.

> Even the Pope called them terrorists.

Pope referred to specific case of two women got killed during firefight allegedly by IDF sniper.

There is no clear evidence that they were killed by IDF, only Palestinian priest words.

It is not the words of one "priest", but of all the Catholics in the compound. And I love how you appended "Palestinian" to try to discredit him, as if a Palestinian's word is not worth much, but the word of the IDF, who have been caught lying through their teeth about almost everything that has happened on and since 7/10 is. And you are wrong. The compound hosts more than just Palestinian Christians. Catholics from around the world serve in Gaza.

And how is that justified? The murder of two old women in a Catholic church compound, by a sniper no less. And one of them was murdered while trying to retrieve the body of her mother.

> It is not the words of one "priest", but of all the Catholics in the compound

evidence on the record is only priest words in interview. I highly doubt if they were killed by actual sniper, anyone in compound had ability to identify which sniper it was.

> if a Palestinian's word is not worth much, but the word of the IDF

It indicates that that person is biased with high probability, and his words should not be taken into account without hard evidence. Strong judgement and manipulation without any hard evidence in this case is very good proof of that.

Please don't cross into flamewar. I know it's not easy, but it's necessary to try.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Just as there was no clear evidence that Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by israeli snipers before they admitted it many months down the line? There are countless videos and accounts of unarmed old men and young boys being sniped by them.

yes, civilians are killed when caught on the middle of firefights, often it is hard to identify who killed them.

In what's happening today, it's not hard to identify who is killing tens of thousands of civilians indiscriminately.

and who uses them as cannon fodder.

Please stop posting flamewar comments. You've done as much of that, maybe more, than any other single user in this thread. That's not ok.

I realize it's hard to discuss this topic without falling into that, but if you can't avoid it, please stop posting until you can. That goes for everyone else as well, of course.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ok, I received your warning, and will try to comply with site rules in the future.

By what definition?

For Hamas being one: basically the entire Western world (Canada, US, UK, EU, Japan, Australia) has declared them as one.

For the IDF not being one: literally no country, not even Iran, has declared them as one.

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

That this comment is being so heavily downvoted is a damning indictment of HN. I didn’t realize moral confusion was so rampant here.