Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

So Israel has an inalienable right to commit genocide (which they describe as "self defense"), but the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves? Make it make sense.

Who is going to teach them?? I think the clue is in their name “TEACHERS for Palestine.”

Related to the use of white phosphorus - under article two - point 2 & 3 is quite clear in this definition.

Two fundamental components of Protocol III are often overlooked, and this has added to the confusion regarding WP and Protocol III. First, Protocol III does not ban the use of incendiary weapons during armed conflict, but it proscribes their use in four specific ways, which are described below. Second, Protocol III’s four specific limitations on the use of incendiary weapons are designed to protect civilians, not combatants.

Article 1 of the protocol defines an “incendiary weapon” as “any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.” Article 1(b)(i) excludes from the definition munitions “which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling [sic] systems.”

White phosphorus is primarily designed to take advantage of its smoke-producing properties to mark or illuminate targets, mask friendly force movement, and the like. The incendiary effects of WP are incidental to the illuminant and smoke effects it is designed to produce. Thus, WP munitions fall squarely into the exclusions of Protocol III’s definition of an “incendiary weapon.”

Napalm is the most infamous example of an incendiary weapon that is governed by Protocol III. Napalm is specifically designed to set things on fire. However, while napalm meets the definition of an “incendiary weapon,” its use, like all other Protocol III-governed weapons, is not per se prohibited but is only subject to the four specific and narrow limitations found in Article 2.

Article 2, titled “Protection of civilians and civilian objects,” prohibits four uses of incendiary weapons:

- Making civilian or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

- Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with air-delivered incendiary weapons.

- Attacking a military objective located within a concentration of civilians with a non-air-delivered incendiary weapon, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken to minimize collateral damage.

- Making forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives.

Israel existed for thousands of years. Hamas (and their funding from Iran, amongst others) is probably around for 50 years. There is no fully recognized palestinian sovereign state, nor has there ever been (british colonial holdings or ottoman provinces don't qualify). I'm willing to bet that Hamas fired the first shot. Not that that matters. Israel is a sovereign state, hamas is a bunch of terrorist morons who hide behind the population that elected them.

It’s not a strike they are selectively deciding who they will and will not deliver mail to and from. What if they decide to do this to a political party? What about black people? This is a dangerous precedent and will bit them and you in the ass when someone picks a different target you won’t agree with.

It's not an open air prison, it's secure borders. If a two state solution would be reached it will still require a secure border. Free travel Schengen like arrangements are only possible between countries who don't hate each other and share common values. Israel did try for peace, two state solution and they completely withdrew from Gaza 20 years ago, and yet rockets were still being launched. Palestinians will not settle for a two state solution, and Israel got burned trying to give them that, so here we are.

"Israel did try for peace, two state solution"

Nope.

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace
process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass
has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a
Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the
borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the
Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed
indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and
permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of
both houses of Congress." Weisglass,
who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking
in an interview with Haaretz for the Friday Magazine."The
disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the
amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a
political process with the Palestinians."

https://www.haaretz.com/2004-10-06/ty-article/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process/0000017f-e56c-dea7-adff-f5ff1fc40000

Ariel Sharon would find it amusing that someone would suggest the engagement from Gaza was him suing for peace. That man had as much interest in a two state solution as Bibi does. Of course for those who can't accept any cricitism of Israel they'll come up with outlandish excuses and be oblivious to their own rank hypocrisy and inconsistencies. Alan Shatter is a prime example, Alan is aghast at international law being broken, except when it comes to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. He has nothing to say about them

He goes on about undefined borders and it being unwise to recognise a Palestinian state. What if someone had used the same reasoning for not recognising the Israeli state back in 1948. I am sure Alan would have disagreed with such a stance.

You do realise that Palestinians and Jews are related genetically?

https://www.science.org/content/article/jews-and-arabs-share-recent-ancestry

more whataboutism

Hang on. Israel has locked off every route, including blowing up the airport and preventing any maritime travel. And that was before last october. You can't just mention Schengen and not mention that every aspect of the gaza strip is completly locked off. Israel even boards ships carrying humanitarian aid.

And you can't claim that Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip without also mentioning that they vastly increased settlements in the west bank. They never paused building there. They give tax breaks to people who live there. They are encouraging settlement building and they have been since the Oslo accords.