Anyone who picks a side as a 'pure victim' with Israel and Hamas doesn't understand the full story.

Israel are not innocent. People need to stop assuming they're just innocent victims defending their so-called homeland. They ripped apart a community and slaughtered many against the wishes of 6 Islamic cultures/nations/peoples to declare that as their homeland, with assistance from US and UK. They have since killed many, minors included and not always in retaliation AT ALL. I can positively tell you they had no fucking genuine reason to kill and make homeless the recent Palestinians they have so far other than sheer arrogance and abuse of power over what was never their capital (Jerusalem) until Trump stuck his nose in to say 'fuck you' to Palestine and Iran.

You also should not for a single second think Israel is the only aggressor and issue at hand. Hamas are legally in charge of the Palestinians by brutal Mafia means of control. They throw PLO leaders off buildings if they don't cower to Hamas and are recruiting, brainwashing and blackmailing any detractors which includes teens and even young boys as well as pregnant women. Stop thinking when IDF sometimes do things it's never in proper defence. If you knew what Hamas does in terms of human shields and child/teen soldiers are and investigate most (not all, most) instances of IDF harming it's in retaliation and defensive maneuvers.

Hamas explicitly state they will never negotiate with nor recognise the existence of Israel as a state (as PLO used to say themselves but got blackmailed to stay true to when they considered alternatives).

Now, we have an ultra-conservative ruthless Netanyahu who also won't negotiate. This is getting worse and worse from both sides.

...

I don't disagree with the Hamas narrative and I haven't ever. In fact, many orthodox, conservative Muslims from both Sunni and Shi'a sects condemn Hamas for their somewhat extremist nature. But in this particular case, the recent issue, I don't see how any rational individual can scapegoat on Hamas everytime to either justify the Israeli occupiers and military terrorists or escape on a non-sense two sider note by blaming and victimizing both the parties. The illegal invasion of the Sheikh jarrah neighborhood started way before Hamas was in the picture. Then they started charging on the civilian praying Muslims of Al Aqsa. Check the timeline, first time Hamas threatened Israel army for a possible attack was 2-3 days after the first attack on Al Aqsa. So, how can you justify the attacks 3 days prior? Are the Palestinian victims to be blamed for anything at all? Even that Hamas launched rockets after that, it was a mere conduct of self defense- by the legal authority of Gaza- I don't see a problem with a legal authority (excepting the way they came into power for now) defending their land from incessant military attacks on their people, that's a classic war situation.

As for the negotiation issue, I believe I had replied to you my take on this one on one of the other threads.

Well, it is evident from RM's #1 on which side of the conflict RM chooses to stand. The language by adjectives, expresses it all, clearly enough, and overwhelms any claim that has been or might be claimed that RM straddles the issue. I will add for the record that only one side of the issue has ever claimed the utter annihilation of the other. I think that speaks for itself. 

Personally, I challenge why Hamas, openly and secretly supported by several nations surrounding Israel, does not encourage their support to simply offer land to Palestinians for a homeland. 

I also wonder why no one of RM's persuasion will answer why it is legitimate for Palestinians to occupy by force the West Bank, when, clearly, Israel occupied it by the same means in 1967, and no one, to date, has been able to wrest it from them. If occupation is a legitimate means to secure a piece of land by war [it was a defensive war by Israel, you will recall], then why is Israel's occupation maligned, and the Arab occupation previously is considered legitimate? If occupation is legit, then why isn't the last to occupy granted the right to maintain it? Y'all have an argument you can't win.

Not to mention my argument of purchase of the West Bank, and the temple mount, some 3400 years ago by David from Araunah, and has not since been sold.

This is off topic, but I don’t understand why the Arab countries don’t unite as one country?

The palestinians already owned the west bank in the first place. It was their land from the start.

Both sides have hurt the other side -- that is a truism. Another truism is that neither side can claim to not have their individuals go amock and become a terrorist. 

The questions at hand, which you are denying the validity of, are "which side caused the conflict?" and "which side is the de facto aggressor?".

The answer to those questions, beyond doubt, is the Arabs -- denying this would mean you don't know history and especially not the war of 1948. The Arabs attacked Israel, and their constant terrorism ever since, both by terrorist organizations and states like Syria, is the major reason for the conflict today. Everything you can accuse Israel of doing has been a response or direct result of this Arab policy --- making the state of Israel the de facto victim overall. Israel of course has both defended itself and retaliated, leading to countless Arab casualties and problems; yet Israel is a free democracy with even gay rights and religious freedom - meaning it is a far superior "moral" nation than its enemies.

I do not deny Arab losses at the hands of Israel but Israel, as opposed to the Arab world, is indeed the victim of the century old conflict. Case closed.

Today, Israel occupation of the west bank is a problem; but the problem was caused by the Jordanian attacks on Israel in 1948 and 1967, wherein they used the west bank as an excellent military base to attack Israel from. Since Israel occupied the territory Jordan has never had a chance nor plans of attacking Israel -- meaning the occupation is effectively both a deterrent and defence of Israel against large-scale conflicts. Military occupation getting stricter is because of terrorism. The Palestinians sure do not know about the power of peaceful revolution, because their violence against Israeli civilians does not in any way incentivise Israelians to leave the territory, rather the opposite is the case.

As evidenced by history, Arabs started and perpetuated the conflict against a small democratic nation solely because of its majority being former Jewish immigrants and refugees. Acknowledging history and "picking a side" is not the same thing. I solely claim that accusations against Israel based on problems actually caused by the Arabs are misleading, and if made by Arabs, hypocritical. Only when current problems are taken out of historical context can Israel be seen as aggressor or "occupying power". I rest my case.

Please give me one clear example (like a document or quote) proving that Arabs in the west bank identified as Palestinians prior to the Israeli occupation. Elsewise, your claim stands as re-writing history by applying current political terms to a past unbeknownst to them. I can tell you as much as that the Jewish newspaper "Jerusalem Post" was originally called "Palestinian post" and was created by a Jew. In fact, Jews in Palestine were the original people referred to as "Palestinians". Today, the former "Arabs" are called "Palestinians" while the former "Palestinians" are called "Israelis". 

Also, stop referring to the Arabs of the west bank as one distinct entity, as prior to the creation of Israel no Arab nation had existed in Palestine.

Are you that petty that if they weren't all called Palestinian you're going to whitewash what happened?

Israel was the initial aggressor though, that's an objective fact. Even in the recent conflicts, it was Israel wjo suddenly brutalised and made homeless as well as lileld children and any residents of Jersualem who were Palestinian, indiscriminately and without warning or mercy. Suddenly Netanyahu decided Jerusalem is Israeli-only territory and poof they're ejected in a series of bloody attacks during late 2020. This then led to brooding rage and anger amongst Hamas ans Jihad.

No whitewashing, only calling out your re-writing of history. Also, Arabs invaded Israel multiple times, made alliances to exterminate it, bombed its farmers in the north and moved military threateningly as well as close the streets of Tiran --- first then did Israel respond with military action; also, both Jordan and Syria attacked Israel, not vice versa.

That was all afterwards. Those are the six nations I refer to.

@RM

in. the first place, when?

In some ways, Israel is a product of its environment. If your culture isn't fanatical to some degree in the Middle East, you will be washed aside in a sea of blood and obscurity.

It's really easy to throw stones in America that has already tamed the savages.

@RM

I acknowledge that perspective, but that perspective acknowledges the complete eradication [therefore, occupation] of Israel. So, again, others may occupy, but Israel cannot? There's a goose and gander that must come to terms when the terms are: occupation is legitimate.

And you still fail to acknowledge the original purchase of the land 3,400 years ago. Not a word. Is it ignorable?

One way you say you are not supporting ethnocentricity or arrogant entitlement, in another way you implicitly state you want Israel to brutalise and blackmail an entire culture and group of human beings in West Bank and Gaza to lose all of their identity and culture because it is written in some bronze age texts that a certain ethnicity is superior.

How was the occupation 'legitimate' ever, to begin with? This word 'legitimate' doesn't mean morally justifiable or positive endgame, correct?

@RM it's really easy to throw stones when radicals in one country throw soup cans and other radicals across the globe throw Qassam Rockets

Your laughable attempts to equivocate morality are pathetic at best, devious at worst.

Everything you said in  your final sentence can be said back to you.

Israel has used chemical weapons, killed people so young it would horrify most and recently done it solely out of sheer racism/ethnocentricity in Jerusalem. 

There is not really any way to justify how or why Israel is entitled to invade and own what it does, especially not when a fair amount of Israelis literally thinks Jews are a superior race/ethnicity. Why is US defending and assisting ethnocentricity like this?

If you think I am lying, this is a literal video 0 acting:

Here's more:

They are fundamentally an apartheid state, there is absolutely no exaggeration in stating that.

So what? Most of the world can be considered Apartheid by your definition. Especially China, Japan, and Norway who are absolutely culturally homogenous with no tolerance for deviance. The windmills you tilt at and hills you choose to die on are funny and tragic as hell. 

China is somewhat especially with Uyghur Muslims but how are Japan and Norway?

The point is that Palestine is much more "Apartheid" than Israel since their mission is the extermination of all Jewish culture with no room for any culture but their own.

Not saying that it's a bad thing to assert the dominance of your culture though, just saying you have a really warped view of the reality of the situation.

Japan currently has a contemptuous view of outsiders, having had a long period of cultural isolationism that ended 150 years ago. Japan has little tolerance today for Gaijin and fully expects all outsiders to conform. 98% of all people in Japan are culturally Japanese with no cultural ghettoes anywhere in Japan at all. Japan is probably the most homogenous cultural nation on the entire planet.

Norway has intense social pressures to have every person who immigrates conform to Janteloven culture. Americans with their ambitions are seriously frowned upon.

> West Bank and Gaza to lose all of their identity and culture because it is written in some bronze age texts that a certain ethnicity is superior

That is not what I said and it is unclear to me how you reached that conclusion. 

Did your viewpoint suddenly shift from this recent post you made elsewhere?

Why do you think "one state" solution means "wipe all palestenians off the map"?

I didn't say that and have never made that claim. 

Nor would I. 

Why are you putting words in my mouth? 

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I never said you want to wipe the physical humans off of the map I said you wanted to wipe their culture and would-be-national identity away from them.

> you wanted to wipe their culture and would-be-national identity away from them.

I didn't say that either, and that is not something I am advocating for now or have advocated for at any point.