Israel’s military has claimed it has encircled Gaza City and divided the besieged coastal strip into two, as Gaza came under its third total communications outage since the start of the war.
“Today, there is north Gaza and south Gaza,” Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari told reporters on Sunday, calling it a “significant stage” in Israel’s war against Hamas.
Israeli media reported that troops are expected to enter Gaza City within 48 hours. Strong explosions were seen in northern Gaza after nightfall.
But the “collapse in connectivity” across Gaza reported by internet access advocacy group NetBlocks.org and confirmed by the Palestinian telecom company Paltel made it even more complicated to convey details of the new stage of the military offensive.
One issue the IDF has been working with for a while is the sheer amount of tunneling by Hamas. There is dense housing right on top of the tunnels. Destroying the tunnels can lead to the above buildings collapsing, as well as the damage caused by any explosives.
Will they annex and depopulate Gaza? I hope not. That’s just going to create another generation of fighters itching for revenge. Grievances outlast Hamas, and they will likely find a form. That said, maybe a single state solution will be the best form of government, as long as Palestinians, Jewish Israelis, and other groups are guaranteed equal rights. The half-ass “two state” attempt right now isn’t working.
I guarantee, if they actually offered that nobody would complain. But they won’t, to “preserve Israel’s Jewish character”. See: Their rejection of Palestinian right of return.
Hell, if they were willing to do that Israel wouldn’t exist and we’d just have had a unified Palestine in 1948.
They want to keep Gaza and the West Bank under military rule until they can fully depopulate them and create Lebensraum.
you’re ignoring the fact that the Palestinian Arabs do not want a two state solution, and the majority of them want to genocide the Jews.
so where do you get this from exactly? because the PA has been working toward a two-state solution, while the Israeli government has been strengthening Hamas to undermine the PA’s attempt at getting a two-state solution passed, and yes, Netanyahu has said this openly, for years
The Palestinian’s under the PLO had a charter to completely reject any two state solution until 1994, and two state negotiations barely lasted a couple years before violence broke out again.
So no, the Palestinian Arabs do not, and have never wanted a two state solution.
So I won’t actually respond to this moron, but if anybody else wants to know why what they’re saying is completely wrong reply to me.
Because you’re a moron, I see.
Palestinians want to control the land, and most want to expel the Jews. That has been the case since the founding of Israel. Sorry you’re blind to that.
yet the PLO was dissolved and replaces by the PA in accordance with the Camp David agreements, of course Israel conveniently forgot they existed, so for about 10 years the Palestinians tried to do the whole peaceful negotiation bit, and got jack shit, until a terror group backed by Bibi won the civil war in Gaza, putting an end to the negotiations entirely.
so I ask if the Palestinians when’t interested in a two-state solution, where is the PLO?
The PA also did not want a two state solution, they wanted a one state solution that they controlled.
what exactly are you talking about? are you just repeating stuff you heard that matches your notion of “all Muslims are evil and want to kill jews”?
None of their negotiations gave Jews a right to the land. And Palestinians tried a total of 2 years of peaceful negotiations, not 10.
And no, not all Muslims are bad, but the leadership in Palestine and Israel have never wanted the other religion to exercise any control in the region, and pretending Palestinians are completely innocent is idiotic.
Uh… The PLO had a lot of national support for a hot minute there, until Netenyahu just up and shut down the Oslo accords. That’s what made terror as popular in Palestine as it is now; there’s simply no other means of resistance left to them.
You mean the PLO who’s second charter was:
“Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit”
They weren’t exactly fans of a two state solution either.
Uh… They then recognized Israel as part of the Oslo accords so… Yeah. There goes your excuse.
The onion did a bit about ten years ago on the Palestine-Israel conflict, reporting:
“Israeli and Palestine leaders have shown they see eye to eye in nearly every facet of the proposed solution, including such provisions as: seizing all territory, watching the opposition burn in righteous fire, and building a unified nation on the corpses of their enemy. Yet, they still haven’t come any closer to putting a stop to the conflict”
Kind of sums it up.
Well yeah they were talking about one-state secular democracy, not a two state solution
For most of the time Israel has existed the Palestinian stance has been a one state under Palestine without Jews. They didn’t want a secular democracy, they wanted to get rid of the Jews.
The fact you think Palestine didn’t have Jews is funny and really sad. Go read a book.
Of course it had Jews, long before it had Muslims. Doesn’t change that the majority of Palestinian Arabs want to get rid of the Jews.
And we’re talking about the area since the formation of Israel.
Bruh Jews and Muslims have lived together for 1400 years what are you even on about?
And since 1948 the Arab Muslims of the region have had a mandate to expel the Jews from Israel. What happened in the previous thousand years does not matter.
exactly. Israel is currently creating hamas 2.0 - you think all of those dead children won’t be avenged by their parents? or the dead parents won’t be avenged by their children?? their approach is and has always been to completely destroy palestinians, this was their opportunity.
It’s because it’s half-assed, by Netanyahu. He won’t allow Palestine state to be formed, as well as will not return the West Bank and evict the illegal settlement, but instead either allow the settler to stay or carve that land for himself. He also want Palestine to demilitarised. A country without military is a sitting duck, so it’s understandable no one wanted that.
No, he doesn’t want Palestine. More moderate/leftist Israelis want a demilitarized Palestine. The Israeli far right just wants them off the map for their lebensraum.
He doesn’t want the state Palestine to exists and the people who identified as Palestinian. If he doesn’t want Palestine(the land) he will retreat from West Bank. Instead, he continue to occupy it and illegally build more settler there.
He doesn’t want a Palestine, he wants it to be greater Israel or whatever.
Netanyahu basically attempts to destroy the 2 state solution by putting more Israelis to the west bank area. That’s quite terrible, I have to admit.
he also aided Hamas to undermine the two-state solution
May I ask about how he helped out Hamas? I don’t know about that.
What I know is that there is illegal occupation in East Jerusalem and Bibi also actively supports life of Jews behind in wall. This is illegal under the international law and also Israeli judiciary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements?wprov=sfti1#Status_of_the_territories).
So I could go on about how and why (funding, assistance in getting rid of less radical secular opposition, the purposeful not targeting in military campaigns etc…), but I figure I could just let some of the oldest newspapers in the region do it for me, after all why reinvent the wheel.
like Harratz
or the Times of Israel
I agree with this 100%. I think it needs to get said more, and more: Palestinians deserve full civil rights including the freedom of movement throughout a single state covering all of historic Palestine.
What do you mean “all of historic Palestine”? Palestine was never a state. Do you mean that Palestine should replace whole Israel? Where would the Izraelis go then?
This wasn’t meant to be a political statement. Historic Palestine is a term for what is technically known as Mandate Palestine (or according to Wikipedia, Mandatory Palestine). This was the region defined as Palestine by the League of Nations between 1920 and is a convenient way to refer to all the area that is contested by Israel and Palestinians.
I’m sorry if it was unclear. I meant that Israel should incorporate the occupied territories formally and legally, and afford the residents full citizenship in the combined state so that both Israelis and Palestinians can live an work anywhere in the combined region. That’s what the "One-State Solution"means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution
The region was called philistia since the 10th century bc. Why are we so focused on the modern nation state, a concept that didn’t really exist until the last couple hundred years?
That land has always been referred to by their population. Philistia, land of the philistines. Then the name morphed into Palestine. It’s always been Palestine.
I just want to point to my response to @[email protected] . This wasn’t meant to be a political statement, I was just using a formal term to refer to the entire region that includes Israel and the occupied territories.
It has never been Palestine lol.
Even before your Philistia, there were Jews occupying the land if you want to make judgement based on who was there first. Then the land became Roman and jews were expelled. Later it became part of the Ottoman Empire and the after WW1, Britain got it. Throughout the history there was never a state called “Palestine”.
There could have been one if they had accepted a compromise proposed by UN in 1948. They didn’t, so the result was no state for Palestine :/
I just explained to you how it was known as that for centuries. Both the philistines and canaanites (of which the Jewish kingdoms grew from) lived in the area as part of the population.
They lived there at the same time, Jews weren’t first. You’re arrogant and wrong, the worst combo.
And you’re still hung up on nation states, the fact that ottomans conquered and ruled the Palestinians/Philistines doesn’t mean those people haven’t lived there constantly for centuries. The idea of a nation state didn’t exist until the 18th century. It has no bearing on whether a population should have self determination.
You also forget that in WW1 the British promised the Palestinians the entire territory for their assistance. So if frame it as Palestinians opposed the Brit’s changing the deal to move a bunch of Europeans into the territory they were promised. The west threw their resources secured through global empire to force this colony on the locals. Framing it as not resisting western colonization is deceptive and obfuscates the motives leadership expressed.
Yes, they lived there at the same time, still Jews came in 13th century BC whilst Philistines not sooner than 12th. In addition, Phillistines were a tribe from an area close to Greece/Macedonia.
However, I agree that there were promises both to Jews and Palestinians. Hence why a compromise had to be made. Israel accepted, Palestine did not (several times).
So they came in you say? So it sounds like by your logic it doesn’t belong to them either, huh? Maybe we should track down the descendants of ancient Canaanites and give them the territory. After all the Israelites were pastoralists east of the levant before they moved into conquer the territory.
More manipulative framing. The Brit’s told Palestinians they could have their land. Then told European Jews they’d give them Palestinians land. A colonial empire took land from Palestinians to give to Europeans. And by “took from” I mean they removed people from their ancestral homes to move in colonists.
Palestinians were told to give up their homes to European immigrants and those immigrants were told they could only colonize half of Palestinian territory. That’s a compromise the same way taking one eye instead of letting you keep both is. I don’t care if you promised someone else both of my eyes, they aren’t your eyes to give away.
One state solution would be nice but do you think they could agree on that?
Arab school or having a state is very different compared to the way Israel works. Whilst none of the Arab countries respects the basic human rights, israel allows registered partnerships and even adoptions by LGBTI people. I am not really sure how this would work.
Another problem could be the extremely radical Jews/Arabs who could maybe threaten the democracy of the one state solution and accept strictly religious decisions.
Comparison to 2 eyes is very inaccurate as: a) there already were jews leaving Europe for obvious reasons, they had to go somewhere b) at some point, the land belonged to both jews and arabs
I agree with you that the way of distributing the land was very terrible.
considering that Israel hasn’t been interested in the two-state solution and has been working hard to undermine it, of course it didn’t work