Video unavailable The uploader has not made this video available in your country
:-(
yt-dlp --proxy socks5://127.0.0.1:9150 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCh5WrNgydw
"Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas ... This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
Gershon Hacohen, former commander of the 7th Armored Brigade and an associate of Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 2019 in an interview:
“Netanyahu’s strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
It's probably as simple as Netanyahu's branded himself as Israel's protector, and if Palestine were to become less threatening, his political prospects sink.
They want a heroic victory for MB because the West knows there are going to be numerous billions of Muslims and they can't kill them all so the best thing is to 'control' the religion as they own and run MB.
October 7 completely undermined the non-MB resistance. Hamas jumped the gun, Israel 'stood down', and the axis of resistance was caught like deers in a headlight. They have been 'reacting' ever since and have been losing every step of the way.
Now the question is: Is Qatar/MB upset about all this? ...
Q. How many times did any Countries hold islamic-only real-estate expos in Mosques for the former and future homes and territories of Jewish peoples either already dispossessed or planned to be dispossessed due to fundamentalist islamic occupation? _Zero_
Q. How many times did any Countries held jewish-only real-estate expos in Synagogues for the former homes and territories of Muslim peoples either already dispossessed or planned to be dispossessed due to zionist occupation? _Countless_
https://lapublicpress.org/2024/09/israeli-real-estate-fair-h...
https://halifax.citynews.ca/2024/03/07/palestine-is-not-for-...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-drawing-protests-in-othe...
https://www.laconverse.com/en/articles/les-coulisses-dun-sal...
They're now at the point where they're paying their contractors $1,500 a house demolished, and constantly inciting violent engagement so as to get the IDF involved and sanitise the area - most notably near the supposed humanitarian relief distribution points they're so fond of double-tap bombing.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250630-shocking-israeli-...
N.B. Israel is now concentrating on the remaining medical facilities, and has carried out at least 17 attacks on or in the vicinity of healthcare facilities in Gaza City since 16 September. (https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj.r2078)
Three healthcare facilities—Al Quds Hospital, Al Rantisi Children’s Hospital, and the Medical Relief Health Centre—have all been directly hit, while further strikes were recorded in the vicinity of two more, Al Shifa Medical Complex and Al Ahli Hospital.
Currently, across the Gaza Strip, only 2000 hospital beds remain available, for a population of over 2 million people.
It was atrocious then and it's atrocious now. There's almost something worse about zionst making it a business now. It's one thing to ethnically cleanse an area out of hatred, it's sick on a whole new level to try and turn a buck in the process.
“But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves[b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.”
Now this could be interpreted as a direct instruction not to profit from the conflict. Something Israel is planning on doing once the Palestinians have been removed from Gaza and they build luxury hotels on top of uncountable dead bodies of children. You could argue that even if you grant Israel religious justification for destruction of Gaza, they would not be granted religious justification for profiting from it.
It’s a pointless thing to bring up other than that I think it exposes this whole thing for the colonialist enterprise it really is, and calls into question how much religious belief is really driving the decision making over there.
Very interesting insight.
This is fantasy. Israel (or any country really) ability to expand is limited by its neighbors. Egypt, Jordan and the GCC are more powerful than the 60s and the recent UAE message of pulling of the Abraham accord is a clear signal that they have real weight in Washington. Israel cannot, in the current circumstances, expand.
So I agree with your parent. What Israel currently is doing is non-sense and plays in the hands of Hamas (who is not losing, as civilian lost lives do not count in Hamas counter).
Despite agreeing to leave under the brokered peace deal, Israel are still in southern Lebanon and show no sign of leaving. The flagrant breach of the original cease fire agreement appears to have no consequences.
The effective seige and annexation of the West bank appears to be gathering pace.
Smotrich said back in April that their campaign in Syria will end 'when Syria is dismantled' - they show no sign of leaving, and are still running operations in and around Damascus, and appear to be running the classic divide and conquer strategy.
While the countries you mention may be stronger - Syria and Lebanon are both very weak and very dependent on US 'aid'.
And in terms of US support, which I agree is critical in all this, they appear to have carte blanc from the current US administration.
Also criticism from EU countries is much more muted than their populations would like - for example the UK government is spending more effort on trying to lock up it's own protesting citizens ( for 14 years under anti-terror laws for doing nothing more that holding up a sign ) than doing anything to stop Israel.
Long term - who knows - but right now the plan does appear to be working.
Jordan and Egypt are 3 and 4 behind Ukraine and Israel in terms of being the recipient of US aid.
I doubt El-sisi could remain in power for long if that aid was withdrawn - if you are kept in power by the military but can no longer afford the wages....
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-yemen-somalia-circle-...
But you are correct, every single time the Arabs have poured over our borders and tried to conquer us - 1948, 1967, 1973 (though we didn't keep it), depending on you look at things 1982 though I would forgive you if you don't see it the way I see it... we've taken land. One would think that if people don't want to lose land, they should not set out to make war.
What a perverse, meaningless justification. This statement reflects your own insecurity - you would never let someone say this if it was Israeli territory being contested. You would never have to say this if Israel didn't possess illegally claim, genocide and then colonize annexed territory in violation of international law.
Reprehensible double standard.
> This statement reflects your own insecurity
What deterrent do we have? Attack us, loose land. That's it. That's our only deterrent.
Perhaps Israel could take a radically different path and aim to call their neighbours "friends" instead, or at minimum a healthy but neutral relationship?
Only a small number of bordering countries worldwide are sworn enemies and the world would be a better place for everyone if this fell to zero.
You might also be interested in this excerpt from our declaration of independence:
> WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
your words betray black and white thinking that demonstrates obvious externalization of responsibility. look up "splitting". it's a psychological defense mechanism.
if you were on the spiritual and moral ground you represent yourself as being on, no one else's actions or stance would change your opinion on whether they deserve love and a psychologically/relationally secure response from you. when someone is psychologically insecure, they overreact, hold double standards, externalize responsibility, and project their own insecurity as a moral flaw onto others. the term "narcissistic defenses" appears in literature. this is why it's so hard to talk to you. you are perpetuating the conflict by using the "logic" you are using. in reality you are displaying entitlement and grandiosity. and that prevents you from admitting it.
an eye for an eye makes the world blind, big man.
realistically, it's your own people and your own children and parts of yourselves that you are attempting to destroy and alienate. You're being used and you're using people.
Just for some agenda that you don't even understand but are all too willing to deploy propaganda to argue for. You remind me of a cult member or someone my grandparents fought against in WW2. Those "Arabs" are just taking your living room, aren't they?
> Those "Arabs" are just taking your living room, aren't they?
You have some growing up to do.
You have become worse than them. Until you admit this, you will not be better. And I know that you don't care about being better anymore. You're just a racist looking to wipe out an ethnic group, not even an ideology. It's in your words.
Shame on you. If and when history confirms that your self-entitlement was the cause of the attacks you would deny it for a long time, just as you are now.
By the way, you're talking to someone whose family is from there as well. You're not the only one who has lost people. What you are doing is attempting to justify the perpetuation of an asymmetric response because you cannot admit your own falsehood, ignorance, and lack of relational depth.
If you really are the stronger and more justified party, you can chill out and allow justice to take its course. Instead, you have lost the support of your allies because you have become the murderers you decried.
This conflict will stop when you can admit that. The obvious solution that you are proposing is the elimination of a group of people, not an ideology. And that is why you can go straight to hell.
Now go look at how every other Middle Eastern nation has dealt with the situation. Do I need to talk about Syrian brutality and gassing people in their own capital? Do I need to talk about Iraqi brutality and their gassing of the Kurds? Saudi Arabia, chopping people to bits in their embassies? Iran, Qatar, Egypt?
When one looks at Israel's neighbors, there is no way to not conclude that Israel has been the gentlest of the Middle Eastern Nations. But now we've taken the gloves off, after the 7th of October 2023. Welcome to the new Middle East.
Also, by all means, name any recent situation in which Egypt Qatar or Iran bombed and encircled a small ethnic enclave to the point of killing at least several dozens of thousands of its people.
Little favor is at all being gained by this country with garbage justifications like these. I say this as someone who used to consistently defend Israel's right to pursue its security against often hostile neighbors. The more recent insanity has simply degenerated into mass murder, by a leadership with a broken moral compass and a leader who's essentially corrupt scum in pursuing his own interests.
> the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians
Not to mention how many Gazans killed by IEDs and failed rocket attacks in the Gaza strip, and how Hamas stoots at people fleeing buildings and areas that the IDF warned they are targeting. Or shooting at people collecting humanitarian aid from distribution centres instead of paying Hamas for it in markets. Or their human shields. Every one of those dead is counted against Israel because in Muslim culture, a martyr dies for a cause no matter which side's hand killed them. And even with those deaths incorrectly attributed to Israel, the civilian:combatant death toll in the Gaza strip is lower than any conflict that NATO or UN forces have ever fought in - by NATO and UN numbers themselves.
> in a tiny strip of land that poses NO fucking existential threat at all to the overall security of Israel?
You need to decide if you feel as strongly about protecting civilians as you do about destroying Israel. Because if you really feel that your ambition is to protect civilians (or at least to defend their cause online) then you need to reevaluate your position on the current conflict. Not because Israel is perfect, but because Israel is fighting to save human life and the Gazans are fighting to destroy it.
I have yet to even mention the hostages, dozens of whom are still in Gaza including people I know personally, which itself is justification for contributing the war no matter the cost to the aggressors. And when the aggressors decide that the civilians of the Gaza strip have suffered too much - the civilians they as the governing body are charged to protect - they can release the hostages and the war will be over.
I'm sorry, but from the outside events would suggest that Bibi has little interest in the return, indeed welfare, of all the hostages. `Indeed he seems to have actively sabotaged efforts that would have returned them, in order to continue the war and the wider aims.
Many ex-hostages and families of hostages seem to agree.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hostage-families-urge-surge-of...
You state that nothing justifies the slaughter of innocent civilians, then proceed to state as much garbage as possible justifying the slaughter of innocent civilians on a massive scale.
Bypassing specific rebuttals to the majority of what you've spewed, i'll put things more simply in this way:
The October 7th attack, as brutal and vicious as it was, could have been dealt with in ways that don't involve pulverizing an entire enclave, killing tens of thousands of its people and then also starving said devastated enclave until thousands more (including little children) starve.
Gaza at no point represents or represented such a risk to Israel that this kind of savagely barbaric, murderous response was even necessary.
Said response was not only a disaster for Israel's tattered reputation in the world, it has been pointless across the board, and has done essentially nothing to help the hostages, the security of Israel or for that matter the families of the October 7th victims.
Israel is more than capable strategically, tactically, technologically of avenging what Hamas did and countering future attempts at similar without slaughtering, starving and bombing civilians in ways that more closely resemble the SS response to the 1944 Warsaw Ghetto uprising than they do any notion of measured national defense.
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to. The guidelines call on us us to make our points without using abusive terms like this. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
And funnily enough, nobody objected when Egypt annexed Gaza, and Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1948.
As far as the international law is concerned, Israel was completely in the clear to annex the entire place until 22nd of November, 1967. After that it gets a bit murky.
That still doesn't change the fact that the entire idea of an independent Palestinian state happened because Israel just didn't annex it all in 1967.
But going back to the UNSC Resolution 242.
> Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force
There are still no recognized boundaries of Palestine, and there sure as hell weren't in 1967. The original UN Partition Plan for Palestine was adopted, but the problem with its adoption is the fact that it was a General Assembly resolution, and the problem with General Assembly resolutions is that they are notoriously non-binding, and thus not worth the paper they are printed on.
Which brings me back to my initial point that the international law just doesn't matter, because technically speaking, the original Partition Plan was settled international law. Worked out great in practice.
> And funnily enough, nobody objected when Egypt annexed Gaza, and Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1948.
Noteworthy as well, that while the West Bank was in the hands of Arabs, there were no calls for establishing an independent Palestinian state there. Same in the Gaza strip.
And while I'm on this soapbox, I might as well mention that Jordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine divided the land into two entities: Mandatory Palestine which was decided by the British to be the 23% of Palestine designated for the Jews, and Jordan which was the 77% of Palestine designated for the Arabs - the same idea of partition that the UN came up with 27 years later. Only difference being that the UN plan partitioned the 23% designated for the Jews further. And yet in both cases the Jews accepted and the Arabs violently ethnically cleansed the lands of Jews. And before anybody mentions the racist idea "it's Arab land" (is Great Britian white man's land?) it should be clear that Jerusalem was Jewish majority for a century before that time.
Nobody called for a Palestinian state in the West Bank during 1948 to 1967 because everyone in power at the time was aware that there already was a Palestinian state in the Land of Palestine: The Kingdom of Jordan.
Ah, this lie still going on. Why was Count Bernadotte murdered in cold blood, when Zionists accepted all the partitions?
I think it's quite the opposite - there has been a very clear, cold, calculated strategy - which is to use the conflict as an cover for doing what some in the government have always wanted to do ( and been quite open about it ) - which is to create a greater Israel - drive out all Palestinians from the river to the sea ( Gaza and West Bank ), as well as push to the river in the north into Lebanon and take more of Syria.
Those in government understand the potential reputation loss - but see that as temporary and something that can be managed under the protection of the US, while viewing the gain of territory as permanent.