What about the Israeli civilians? You don’t do what Hamas did and expect no come back. If the civilians are so innocent, why are schools, hospitals and many homes filled with arms and rockets? Why did they vote in Hamas? Why did the innocent public allow all the tunnels and training camps to be built. People have to take responsibility for their own lack of action, sadly they are reaping what they sowed.
I think they got 44% of the vote? Then took over - and no more elections. Similar to N…s. They never got over 50% either but had enough to take over government.
People try to see the Palestinian-Arabs through Western eyes, but they are Middle Eastern peoples, not Western ones, and they don't practice Western ethics.
As the facts emerge from the Oct 7 prison break and disciplined military mission you are well advised to reject your most uncritical acceptance of war atrocities stories. Thus far more than 1/3 of those killed were IDF guard duty and captured surveillance officers in the perimeter of military post kibbutzim. Next losses were suffered by civilians at the hands of IDF whose tanks and Apache helicopter’s Hellfire Missiles did far more atrocity than the Hamas fighters could ever do. Open your skeptical thinking to your Netanyahu’s Hannibal Directive atrocity before your blame is lumped on those Hamas fighters alone. ….. don’t give us that lazy sh’t of justifying 25,000 murdered people in Gaza for the few 100’s who were killed outside your monsterous genocidal prison camp.
Well, it looks like I didn't post anything "above." My posts are sometimes strong, always carefully reasoned, never include foul language or disrespect to anyone, and certainly do not join any extreme viewpoints that are not shared by some serious public people although they are very often the opposite of p.c. I am extremely sick of them being censored and deleted by TH-cam.
History did not begin on October 7th and that attack did not happen in a vacuum. Palestinians have been subjected to many October 7ths with massive loss of civilians since 1948 if not before. It’s time that Israel accepts responsibility for the horrendous damage it has inflicted on Palestinians so a genuine peace process can begin and not the time wasting it has been doing for decades.
@@nk-gp1ml True enough. Israeli history goes back to the time of King David and before while so called 'Palestinians' have been around since Yassir Arafat invented them when he founded the PLO the Palestinine Liberation Organistation in 1964. Before then there is no mention of Palestine in any UN documentation. No kings of Palestine, not one Palestinian archeological artifact has ever been found in contrast to thousands of Jewish/ Land of the Jews ''Judea'' artifacts. Israel has only ever reacted when attacked by outside forces, be they Jordanian, Egyption Syrian usually all of them at once. Or as we saw last October so called Palestinians from Gaza raping, torturing, and murdering men, women, children and babies. Then kidnapping and hold hundreds as hostages. The Palestinians ,so called leadership have inflicted more pain on their own than the Israelis. Every person, man, woman child, Palestinian or Israeli would be alive and well today had it not been for those Palestinian butchers attacking innocent Israeli villages and a pop festival last October. They even filmed themselves as they did it, proud of their crimes. Yet people like you try to justify it with aa half arsed knowledge of the history of the region. You should be demanding the surrender of Hamas and the release of the hostages if your only concern is the welfare of the Palestinians. If they surrendered and did the above, the war and killing would stop in hours. Remember that when you next attempt to justify what they did, brother. Your friends in Hamas are not interested in any kind of peace that includes Israel existing or any jew in its borders. That's what 'From the River to the Sea', means, mate. It's also what you want really. Ther will be no 'peace' until Hamas has been destroyed and Israel's borders are secure so they can sleep in their beds at night without expecting to be attacked before morning. To be clear as many Hamas supporters don't seem to know. Thats the River Jordan and the Mediterrean sea. You're welcome.
Soldiers' lives are not intrinsically more valuable than civilian lives, but they ARE strategically more important. If you're going to fight a war at all, and believe that that is a moral imperative, then you simply have to prioritise conserving your own forces' fighting capacity while destroying that of your enemy. If this requires sacrificing civilian lives, then that is justified as long as your war aims are justified..This applies even more so in the modern industrial-economic era when the whole of society tends to be involved in the war effort. In other words, in the modern era, most civilians are indirect combatants and are therefore valid military targets. This is certainly the case in Palestine where Hamas, an organisation dedicated to the destruction of Israel, enjoys great moral, physical and political support within the population.
"This applies even more so in the modern industrial-economic era when the whole of society tends to be involved in the war effort. In other words, in the modern era, most civilians are indirect combatants and are therefore valid military targets." Even if you are right about this part from a moral perspective, this is completely contrary to the norms embodied in international law after 1945. Under the current framework, that (say) your grandma pays taxes, and thereby contributes indirectly to the war effort, does not make her a legitimate target. The fact that the framework allows for collateral damage is an entirely different issue, as someone can only be considered collateral damage if he or she was not the target of an attack but was rather hit as an unintended side-effect thereof.
Here’s what proportionality actually means according to international law. It does not mean tit for tat. It means that Israel’s strikes against HAMAS have to be proportional to the threat and stopping the threat. Israel has used a proportional response. HAMAS continues to fire rockets at Israeli civilian population centers, so the threat still exists. Pictures from Gaza show some destroyed buildings but large areas that have been left virtually untouched. Israel is not carpet-bombing but is trying to hit specific targets of rocket launch sites, HAMAS leaders and underground tunnels that shelter HAMAS murderers and their weapons and their command and control. Anyone claiming that Israel has violated the rules of war in that the response from the Israel Defense Forces has been disproportionate either doesn’t understand what that means, or they are deliberately spreading lies.
From the House of Lords: "There has been a lot of talk about proportionality in the law on self-defence. I refer to the words that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, used a few days ago on the test of proportionality. It does not mean that the defensive force has to be equal to the force used in the armed attack. Proportionality means that you can use force that is proportionate to the defensive objective, which is to stop, to repel and to prevent further attacks. Israel has described its war aims as the destruction of Hamas’s capability. From a legal perspective, these war aims are consistent with proportionality in the law of self-defence, given what Hamas says and does and what Hamas has done and continues to do. Asking a state that is acting in self-defence to agree to a ceasefire before its lawful defensive objectives have been met is, in effect, asking that state to stop defending itself. For such calls to be reasonable and credible, they must be accompanied by a concrete proposal setting out how Israel’s legitimate defensive goals against Hamas will be met through other means. It is not an answer to say that Israel has to conclude a peace treaty, because Hamas is not interested in a peace treaty. Proportionality also applies in the law that governs the conduct of hostilities, not only in self-defence. The law of armed conflict requires that in every attack posing a risk to civilian life, that risk must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage that is anticipated. That rule does not mean, even when scrupulously observed, that civilians will not tragically lose their lives in an armed conflict. The law of armed conflict, at its best, can mitigate the horrors of war but it cannot eliminate them. The great challenge in this conflict is that Hamas is the kind of belligerent that cynically exploits these rules by putting civilians under its control at risk and even using them to seek immunity for its military operations, military equipment and military personnel. An analysis of the application of the rules on proportionality in targeting in this conflict must always begin with this fact. There has also been some discussion about siege warfare. The UK manual of the law of armed conflict, reflecting the Government’s official legal position-it is a Ministry of Defence document-says: “Siege is a legitimate method of warfare … It would be unlawful to besiege an undefended town since it could be occupied without resistance”. Gaza is not an undefended town. It is true that obligations apply to the besieging forces when civilians are caught within the area that is being encircled, and those obligations include agreeing to the passage of humanitarian relief by third parties. But it is not correct to say that encircling an area with civilians in it is not permitted by the laws of war. A further point that concerns the laws of war is also of particular relevance to the British Government’s practice. It has already been mentioned that the Government have taken the view that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation, even though Israel pulled out in 2005. The traditional view until 2005 was that occupation required physical presence in the territory. That view is consistent with Article 42 of the Hague regulations of 1907, which states that a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the occupying power. Again, it is also the view taken by the UK manual of the law of armed conflict, which reflects the UK’s official legal position and states that occupation ceases as soon as the occupying power evacuates the area. The European Court of Human Rights, in its jurisprudence, has also adopted a similar approach to occupation. So I have always been rather baffled by the British Government’s position on this issue, which, as far as I know, has not changed. Yes, it is true that Israel has exercised significant control over the airspace and in the maritime areas, but even as a matter of plain geography it takes two-Israel and Egypt-to control the land access points to Gaza. More fundamentally, it is Hamas that has been responsible for the government and administration of Gaza. I appreciate that this is a legal matter on which the Minister may not want to respond immediately but it is an important one, because the legal fiction that Israel was still the occupying power under the laws of armed conflict has been relentlessly exploited by Hamas to blame Israel for everything, while using the effective control that it has over the territory, the people and the resources to wage war. On a final note, I would like to say something briefly on the way in which the war is being reported. When a serious allegation is made, particularly one that could constitute a war crime, the immediate response of the law-abiding belligerent will be to say, “We are investigating”. The non-law-abiding belligerent, by contrast, will forthwith blame the other side and even provide surprisingly precise casualty figures. The duty to investigate is one of the most important ones in armed conflict. What happened in the way in which the strike on the hospital was reported is that the side that professes no interest whatever in complying with the laws of armed conflict was rewarded with the headlines that it was seeking." rozenberg.substack.com/p/the-law-of-armed-conflict @@samuelross9884
@@MrBeautifulmountain Yes, I agree with your point in respect of the example you've given, but I don't think it invalidates the general truth of what I said. In the modern era, war tends to engage the whole of society continuously. As you point out, that is only a tendency and we can all find tragic examples of innocents who are only passively caught up in it. That grandmother who pays her taxes may be the mother of two or three children who work in an armaments factory or significantly service the war effort in some structural way. In modern war, the goal is to defeat the entire war effort - the very capacity and will of your enemy to continue waging war on you. That means significantly damaging your enemy's entire industrial agricultural administrative coherence, and that involves attacking them in one way or another. If countries aren't allowed to do that then they can't defend themselves against their enemy's war effort. In a case like Gaza, where a population has allowed a paramilitary organisation bent on annihilating a neighbouring country and it's people, to completely embed itself in that population's social life and infrastructure rather as the German people allowed Hitler's Nazis to do the same there in the 1930s, then there exists a high measure of corporate responsibility for the consequences that follow. That's what's being challenged in the present Israel-Gaza conflict where Palestinian supporters are accusing Israel of carrying out a collective punishment of the Gazan people. It's a frivolous, opportunistic, and malicious charge which fails to hold the Gazan people and Hamas responsible for the consequences of their own hostile actions towards Israel over many years, clearly exemplified in the indiscriminate bestial violence meted out on October 7th, to Israelis merely for being Israelis. I feel no more and no less sympathy for Gazans than I do for the Germans or Japanese during WW2, and no more condemn Israel for her war actions against Gaza than I condemn my own country for her former actions against Germany.
@@MrBeautifulmountain Very helpful references. Thank you. And thank you for your own further explanations regarding the legalities of war in general as well as in Gaza. I agree with your earlier distinction between morality and legality, and just wanted to add that law necessarily trails behind reality to some extent. I don't think it fares very well in regulating conflicts like civil wars where peoples actually murderously hate each other and will not countenance reconciliation. The essential threat to Israel from Palestinians is irreconcilable hatred of Israel for its very existence. This is really obvious from the chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which very clearly intends the complete annihilation of the state of Israel, and the killing or expulsion of all Israeli Jews. How can international law conceptualise and define belligerency in such cases? My impression is that the hatred of Israel among Palestinians is massively inflamed by Islamic supremacism, and has been in play from the conflict's effective beginning in the 1920s when what today we would call Islamists began to exercise moral leadership of the hard done by Palestinian Muslims, and, reverting to historical type, presented the slaughter of Jewish infidels as righteous jihad. Arab protesters in the riots of the 1920s carried banners saying, "Jews are our dogs", this when Jews in Palestine were still a minority, and only explicable to me as an expression of a deeply held sense of rightful Islamic supremacy. When that lethal sense of moral righteousness relative to others takes hold of an entire population or a significant swathe of it, I have no idea how one can distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. It's genuinely terrifying and at the limits of moral codification. The legal regulation of proxy war where a people's capacity to wage war is significantly enhanced by stronger supporters, seems inadequate too. This a very real factor in Gaza where Hamas as Gaza's governing authority seems to have been able to turn massive charitable foreign aid to the dual use of helping Gazans while laying down infrastructure for it's ongoing war against Israel. Shouldn't such 'charitable' donors be classed as belligerents when they know their aid is being used to bolster the recipient's war effort?
One side has military equipment that is hi tech, the other side still uses donkeys with a cart. One side uses Talmudic language in speeches given to their people to invoke the most radical of all people and then claims it’s the other side who is radical.
Here’s what proportionality actually means according to international law. It does not mean tit for tat. It means that Israel’s strikes against HAMAS have to be proportional to the threat and stopping the threat. Israel has used a proportional response. HAMAS continues to fire rockets at Israeli civilian population centers, so the threat still exists. Pictures from Gaza show some destroyed buildings but large areas that have been left virtually untouched. Israel is not carpet-bombing but is trying to hit specific targets of rocket launch sites, HAMAS leaders and underground tunnels that shelter HAMAS murderers and their weapons and their command and control. Anyone claiming that Israel has violated the rules of war in that the response from the Israel Defense Forces has been disproportionate either doesn’t understand what that means, or they are deliberately spreading lies.
From the House of Lords: "There has been a lot of talk about proportionality in the law on self-defence. I refer to the words that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, used a few days ago on the test of proportionality. It does not mean that the defensive force has to be equal to the force used in the armed attack. Proportionality means that you can use force that is proportionate to the defensive objective, which is to stop, to repel and to prevent further attacks. Israel has described its war aims as the destruction of Hamas’s capability. From a legal perspective, these war aims are consistent with proportionality in the law of self-defence, given what Hamas says and does and what Hamas has done and continues to do. Asking a state that is acting in self-defence to agree to a ceasefire before its lawful defensive objectives have been met is, in effect, asking that state to stop defending itself. For such calls to be reasonable and credible, they must be accompanied by a concrete proposal setting out how Israel’s legitimate defensive goals against Hamas will be met through other means. It is not an answer to say that Israel has to conclude a peace treaty, because Hamas is not interested in a peace treaty. Proportionality also applies in the law that governs the conduct of hostilities, not only in self-defence. The law of armed conflict requires that in every attack posing a risk to civilian life, that risk must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage that is anticipated. That rule does not mean, even when scrupulously observed, that civilians will not tragically lose their lives in an armed conflict. The law of armed conflict, at its best, can mitigate the horrors of war but it cannot eliminate them. The great challenge in this conflict is that Hamas is the kind of belligerent that cynically exploits these rules by putting civilians under its control at risk and even using them to seek immunity for its military operations, military equipment and military personnel. An analysis of the application of the rules on proportionality in targeting in this conflict must always begin with this fact. There has also been some discussion about siege warfare. The UK manual of the law of armed conflict, reflecting the Government’s official legal position-it is a Ministry of Defence document-says: “Siege is a legitimate method of warfare … It would be unlawful to besiege an undefended town since it could be occupied without resistance”. Gaza is not an undefended town. It is true that obligations apply to the besieging forces when civilians are caught within the area that is being encircled, and those obligations include agreeing to the passage of humanitarian relief by third parties. But it is not correct to say that encircling an area with civilians in it is not permitted by the laws of war. A further point that concerns the laws of war is also of particular relevance to the British Government’s practice. It has already been mentioned that the Government have taken the view that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation, even though Israel pulled out in 2005. The traditional view until 2005 was that occupation required physical presence in the territory. That view is consistent with Article 42 of the Hague regulations of 1907, which states that a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the occupying power. Again, it is also the view taken by the UK manual of the law of armed conflict, which reflects the UK’s official legal position and states that occupation ceases as soon as the occupying power evacuates the area. The European Court of Human Rights, in its jurisprudence, has also adopted a similar approach to occupation. So I have always been rather baffled by the British Government’s position on this issue, which, as far as I know, has not changed. Yes, it is true that Israel has exercised significant control over the airspace and in the maritime areas, but even as a matter of plain geography it takes two-Israel and Egypt-to control the land access points to Gaza. More fundamentally, it is Hamas that has been responsible for the government and administration of Gaza. I appreciate that this is a legal matter on which the Minister may not want to respond immediately but it is an important one, because the legal fiction that Israel was still the occupying power under the laws of armed conflict has been relentlessly exploited by Hamas to blame Israel for everything, while using the effective control that it has over the territory, the people and the resources to wage war. On a final note, I would like to say something briefly on the way in which the war is being reported. When a serious allegation is made, particularly one that could constitute a war crime, the immediate response of the law-abiding belligerent will be to say, “We are investigating”. The non-law-abiding belligerent, by contrast, will forthwith blame the other side and even provide surprisingly precise casualty figures. The duty to investigate is one of the most important ones in armed conflict. What happened in the way in which the strike on the hospital was reported is that the side that professes no interest whatever in complying with the laws of armed conflict was rewarded with the headlines that it was seeking." rozenberg.substack.com/p/the-law-of-armed-conflict
I suggest that each of us has an intrinsic right to life, but not to deny it to others. He who is attacked, therefore, may defend himself, even if he must kill his attacker.@@estellasaville1610
@@MrJm323 yes. Obviously. I only ment to convey the redundancy of explaining the reasons why the sun will shine tomorrow. You may want to know how and why in details, and that's fine. But the answer is so obviously yes.
To expose troops on the ground to much greater risks is exactly with Israel is doing, in an attempt to minimise civilian casualties. As for Israel strategy for peace, two things: - why does everybody look at Israel for a strategy or a solution? Where is Hamas in sll this? - Snd how can you expect Israel to have a viable strategy when the other party, Hamas, have a declared commitment to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of jews wherever they find them?
Rubbish absurd excuses. Destruction of the Jewish People? From here you indulge yourself in “confession by projection”. This is also known as ….. look at yourself, comprehend your mirror image.
I have one question to this so called humanitarian Mr Nigel Biggar. Is this man and the world aware of the fact that officially 13 Arab Nations have banned Israelis from their nation (let alone the many in Middle-East who don't even recognize Israel). Under such a hostile anti-Israeli sentiment what right have these nations to question Israel's right of self-defense where unintentional collateral damage when operating within civilian areas is inevitable.
Thank you Nigel for explaining as impartially as possible. Israel hasn't had a peace strategy simply because there has never been peace but also, aside from America, no other country, be it regional neighbours or Western governments, have ever bothered to work with Israel to find a solution...
Not true and also a bit of a silly comment. Firstly Norway acted as a mediator during the Oslo peace accords. Secondly what country would be in the position to do this? It's hegemonic position And it's relationship with Israel means the US is really the only possible partner for peace.
👋 But consider this - "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." NETANYAHU explained this to his Likud party members at the Knesset in March of 2019. Reported by the Israeli paper, Haaretz. Netanyahu covertly supported Hamas to keep them in power so no legitimate leadership could form in Gaza and so he could eventually fulfill his dream of mass murder, leveling, clearing, and claiming Gaza for Israel. Corruption and evil through and through. Oh, and killing civilians is not moral. It's literally a war crime.
Everybody should read Nigels book on 'Colonialism'. The Wokeratti went mad at its publication. A higher recommendation for reading it would be hard to imagine.
Why not ask the question, "Can Hamas/Gaza be the victim if they started the war and performed Oct 7 atrocities?" The answer would be a resounding NO! To YOUR question, the answer is absolutely YES!
When an 8 year old Gaza Shia Arab on “National” TV says her mother was martyred then there is no longer a distinction between militants and civilians; they are all militants. People need to stop splitting hairs on this. “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Winston Churchill”
Churchill appeased Arabs in 1922 by giving a foreign Arab war lord 70% of the British mandate for Palestine (territory for a Jewish State) because the War lord’s brother was kicked out of Syria. Then the British further appeased Arabs by limiting Jewish immigration to the land of Israel just as the holocaust began. The irony is amazing.
@@1czechit1The British had no right to do that. The people of Palestine hold the DNA of the ancient Hebrew people. It was their land. Britain had no right to "give" land that was not theirs to European immigrants. They European Jews should simply have settled into the existing communities among their genetic brothers and sisters. It was illegal and based completely on racism. Remove the dark Hebrews that never left to give to the racist, entitled, white European Jews that simply murdered, displaced, and took everything without remorse.
4:52 ROFLMAO Of all the nations that could possibly attempt to charge another nation with genocide, South Africa has the Gaul? Sorry, I can't take that seriously. Also, in order for actions to be considered genocidal, wouldn't they have to be directed against an entire race? The people in the Gaza strip are barely even a nation, never mind a race. Try again.
South Africa has perhaps not forgotten the British butcheries and the concentration camps of the Boer Wars.This makes them sympathetic to Gaza. By the way as a matter of fact the forced colonisation of the West Bank by the Israelis is also a form of perverse war. So let's stop being hypocritical and cynical !
It will be interesting to see how the world media will report the return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, given how He is sidelined by all of them. Not forgetting of course the earth is the Lord's and all it contains, the world and those who live in it. By the way did I mention God gave the entirety of the land to Israel without needing the approval of men. Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying speak to Aaron and to his sons saying thus shall you bless the sons of Israel, you shall say to them; The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face shine on you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. So shall they invoke my name on the sons of Israel, and I will bless them. This is after all the eternal God speaking !
As victor of the war(s), it is Israel's privilege (and responsibility) to dictate the conditions for peace. To "negotiate a settlement" contravenes the one rule of war that NO ONE questions or violates, except in this conflict - that the loser has no say, and the winner gets what IT WANTS.
I think it is quite sinister to justify the wide scale killing of civilians. Everyone knows that civilian deaths in Gaza are outrageously high. I don’t think the ‘right’ in Israel care a jot about Gazans lives and have said so. I understand that in war civilian deaths in are inevitable but the people of Gaza have no means of escape and are hemmed in under the bombardment and being killed at a shocking rate. I am probably basically a Pacifist though to put this in context as I am a Christian. This doesn’t mean that I don’t utterly condemn the October 7th massacre by Hamas.
The reason Gazans have no means of escape is because Egypt And Jordan have closed their respective borders with Gaza and no Arab state is willing to accept ANY Gazan "refugees".
In comparison to 21 century muslum on muslim conflicts the death toll is actually very small . (According to sa icj case the death toll is 22000 , closer to the 12 000 hamas soldier and 10000 civillian that israel linked sources claim then the 35 000 civillians of hamas sources) The syrian war started with +/- 23 000 lethal casualties on day 1 alone .
The ratio of civilian to military deaths is the lowest ever achieved in history. It's less than 2 to 1, which is lower than the Americans, Brits, French, Chinese, Russians, and every other modern army. It's vastly lower than the local Muslim powers: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, etc. Those numbers are probably closer to 50 to 1 ratios.
He says he doesn't see any evidence of genocidal intent. What could be evidence of genocidal intent if not what the world is watching and hearing? The question in this Interview and the point of view of the Interviewed are so delicatly veiled with an objectivity intent, but it doesn't achieve to be objective not even rational, these subtleties are much more dangerous then the blunt sincerity of Israeli officials. Spanisch refrain : "Aunque el mono se vista de seda, mono se queda" The conscious and objective answer is NO!!NO!! and NO!!
I wonder if this is why Israel is so hated by every other religious, political and social belief system? Because God chose her to manifest His Word through on Earth first? If anyone has a truly open objective and scientific mind to seek truth, this could be the answer - simple human jealousy for not being picked first. But then no other nation has been willing to be humbled by God and remain faithful to Him. Perhaps that is why He does not seek mans opinion, permission or view point. What a disappointment for them. We will see...
Sind nicht auerwählt.sagen es immer wieder Alle sind Auserwählt zu leben .Keiner ist hir damit er Zertrampelt wird .Wir alle sind Hamas .Hamas hat die Wahlen Gewonnen.
Yes it’s absolutely morally right , look at what happened on 10/7 No amount of Palestinians will make io for what happened on 10/7 …. Get it right , they should thank Hamas for this !!!
What about the Israeli civilians? You don’t do what Hamas did and expect no come back. If the civilians are so innocent, why are schools, hospitals and many homes filled with arms and rockets? Why did they vote in Hamas? Why did the innocent public allow all the tunnels and training camps to be built. People have to take responsibility for their own lack of action, sadly they are reaping what they sowed.
The don't matter people expect them to just lie dow and take it.
Wow. What a vile comment. There speaks a man who has never seen war
I think they got 44% of the vote? Then took over - and no more elections. Similar to N…s. They never got over 50% either but had enough to take over government.
People try to see the Palestinian-Arabs through Western eyes, but they are Middle Eastern peoples, not Western ones, and they don't practice Western ethics.
As the facts emerge from the Oct 7 prison break and disciplined military mission you are well advised to reject your most uncritical acceptance of war atrocities stories. Thus far more than 1/3 of those killed were IDF guard duty and captured surveillance officers in the perimeter of military post kibbutzim. Next losses were suffered by civilians at the hands of IDF whose tanks and Apache helicopter’s Hellfire Missiles did far more atrocity than the Hamas fighters could ever do. Open your skeptical thinking to your Netanyahu’s Hannibal Directive atrocity before your blame is lumped on those Hamas fighters alone. ….. don’t give us that lazy sh’t of justifying 25,000 murdered people in Gaza for the few 100’s who were killed outside your monsterous genocidal prison camp.
82% of Gazans support the actions of Hamas on October 7 last year. So, Hertzog was only 82% correct.
Totally agree, as I posted more fully above.
Well, it looks like I didn't post anything "above." My posts are sometimes strong, always carefully reasoned, never include foul language or disrespect to anyone, and certainly do not join any extreme viewpoints that are not shared by some serious public people although they are very often the opposite of p.c. I am extremely sick of them being censored and deleted by TH-cam.
History did not begin on October 7th and that attack did not happen in a vacuum. Palestinians have been subjected to many October 7ths with massive loss of civilians since 1948 if not before. It’s time that Israel accepts responsibility for the horrendous damage it has inflicted on Palestinians so a genuine peace process can begin and not the time wasting it has been doing for decades.
@@nk-gp1ml True enough. Israeli history goes back to the time of King David and before while so called 'Palestinians' have been around since Yassir Arafat invented them when he founded the PLO the Palestinine Liberation Organistation in 1964.
Before then there is no mention of Palestine in any UN documentation. No kings of Palestine, not one Palestinian archeological artifact has ever been found in contrast to thousands of Jewish/ Land of the Jews ''Judea'' artifacts.
Israel has only ever reacted when attacked by outside forces, be they Jordanian, Egyption Syrian usually all of them at once. Or as we saw last October so called Palestinians from Gaza raping, torturing, and murdering men, women, children and babies. Then kidnapping and hold hundreds as hostages.
The Palestinians ,so called leadership have inflicted more pain on their own than the Israelis. Every person, man, woman child, Palestinian or Israeli would be alive and well today had it not been for those Palestinian butchers attacking innocent Israeli villages and a pop festival last October. They even filmed themselves as they did it, proud of their crimes. Yet people like you try to justify it with aa half arsed knowledge of the history of the region.
You should be demanding the surrender of Hamas and the release of the hostages if your only concern is the welfare of the Palestinians. If they surrendered and did the above, the war and killing would stop in hours.
Remember that when you next attempt to justify what they did, brother.
Your friends in Hamas are not interested in any kind of peace that includes Israel existing or any jew in its borders.
That's what 'From the River to the Sea', means, mate. It's also what you want really.
Ther will be no 'peace' until Hamas has been destroyed and Israel's borders are secure so they can sleep in their beds at night without expecting to be attacked before morning.
To be clear as many Hamas supporters don't seem to know. Thats the River Jordan and the Mediterrean sea.
You're welcome.
more lies and victimology@@nk-gp1ml
Soldiers' lives are not intrinsically more valuable than civilian lives, but they ARE strategically more important. If you're going to fight a war at all, and believe that that is a moral imperative, then you simply have to prioritise conserving your own forces' fighting capacity while destroying that of your enemy. If this requires sacrificing civilian lives, then that is justified as long as your war aims are justified..This applies even more so in the modern industrial-economic era when the whole of society tends to be involved in the war effort. In other words, in the modern era, most civilians are indirect combatants and are therefore valid military targets. This is certainly the case in Palestine where Hamas, an organisation dedicated to the destruction of Israel, enjoys great moral, physical and political support within the population.
"This applies even more so in the modern industrial-economic era when the whole of society tends to be involved in the war effort. In other words, in the modern era, most civilians are indirect combatants and are therefore valid military targets."
Even if you are right about this part from a moral perspective, this is completely contrary to the norms embodied in international law after 1945. Under the current framework, that (say) your grandma pays taxes, and thereby contributes indirectly to the war effort, does not make her a legitimate target. The fact that the framework allows for collateral damage is an entirely different issue, as someone can only be considered collateral damage if he or she was not the target of an attack but was rather hit as an unintended side-effect thereof.
Here’s what proportionality actually means according to international law.
It does not mean tit for tat. It means that Israel’s strikes against HAMAS have to be proportional to the threat and stopping the threat. Israel has used a proportional response. HAMAS continues to fire rockets at Israeli civilian population centers, so the threat still exists. Pictures from Gaza show some destroyed buildings but large areas that have been left virtually untouched. Israel is not carpet-bombing but is trying to hit specific targets of rocket launch sites, HAMAS leaders and underground tunnels that shelter HAMAS murderers and their weapons and their command and control. Anyone claiming that Israel has violated the rules of war in that the response from the Israel Defense Forces has been disproportionate either doesn’t understand what that means, or they are deliberately spreading lies.
From the House of Lords:
"There has been a lot of talk about proportionality in the law on self-defence. I refer to the words that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, used a few days ago on the test of proportionality. It does not mean that the defensive force has to be equal to the force used in the armed attack. Proportionality means that you can use force that is proportionate to the defensive objective, which is to stop, to repel and to prevent further attacks.
Israel has described its war aims as the destruction of Hamas’s capability. From a legal perspective, these war aims are consistent with proportionality in the law of self-defence, given what Hamas says and does and what Hamas has done and continues to do.
Asking a state that is acting in self-defence to agree to a ceasefire before its lawful defensive objectives have been met is, in effect, asking that state to stop defending itself. For such calls to be reasonable and credible, they must be accompanied by a concrete proposal setting out how Israel’s legitimate defensive goals against Hamas will be met through other means. It is not an answer to say that Israel has to conclude a peace treaty, because Hamas is not interested in a peace treaty.
Proportionality also applies in the law that governs the conduct of hostilities, not only in self-defence. The law of armed conflict requires that in every attack posing a risk to civilian life, that risk must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage that is anticipated. That rule does not mean, even when scrupulously observed, that civilians will not tragically lose their lives in an armed conflict. The law of armed conflict, at its best, can mitigate the horrors of war but it cannot eliminate them. The great challenge in this conflict is that Hamas is the kind of belligerent that cynically exploits these rules by putting civilians under its control at risk and even using them to seek immunity for its military operations, military equipment and military personnel. An analysis of the application of the rules on proportionality in targeting in this conflict must always begin with this fact.
There has also been some discussion about siege warfare. The UK manual of the law of armed conflict, reflecting the Government’s official legal position-it is a Ministry of Defence document-says:
“Siege is a legitimate method of warfare … It would be unlawful to besiege an undefended town since it could be occupied without resistance”.
Gaza is not an undefended town. It is true that obligations apply to the besieging forces when civilians are caught within the area that is being encircled, and those obligations include agreeing to the passage of humanitarian relief by third parties. But it is not correct to say that encircling an area with civilians in it is not permitted by the laws of war.
A further point that concerns the laws of war is also of particular relevance to the British Government’s practice. It has already been mentioned that the Government have taken the view that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation, even though Israel pulled out in 2005. The traditional view until 2005 was that occupation required physical presence in the territory. That view is consistent with Article 42 of the Hague regulations of 1907, which states that a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the occupying power. Again, it is also the view taken by the UK manual of the law of armed conflict, which reflects the UK’s official legal position and states that occupation ceases as soon as the occupying power evacuates the area. The European Court of Human Rights, in its jurisprudence, has also adopted a similar approach to occupation. So I have always been rather baffled by the British Government’s position on this issue, which, as far as I know, has not changed. Yes, it is true that Israel has exercised significant control over the airspace and in the maritime areas, but even as a matter of plain geography it takes two-Israel and Egypt-to control the land access points to Gaza.
More fundamentally, it is Hamas that has been responsible for the government and administration of Gaza. I appreciate that this is a legal matter on which the Minister may not want to respond immediately but it is an important one, because the legal fiction that Israel was still the occupying power under the laws of armed conflict has been relentlessly exploited by Hamas to blame Israel for everything, while using the effective control that it has over the territory, the people and the resources to wage war.
On a final note, I would like to say something briefly on the way in which the war is being reported. When a serious allegation is made, particularly one that could constitute a war crime, the immediate response of the law-abiding belligerent will be to say, “We are investigating”. The non-law-abiding belligerent, by contrast, will forthwith blame the other side and even provide surprisingly precise casualty figures. The duty to investigate is one of the most important ones in armed conflict. What happened in the way in which the strike on the hospital was reported is that the side that professes no interest whatever in complying with the laws of armed conflict was rewarded with the headlines that it was seeking."
rozenberg.substack.com/p/the-law-of-armed-conflict
@@samuelross9884
@@MrBeautifulmountain Yes, I agree with your point in respect of the example you've given, but I don't think it invalidates the general truth of what I said. In the modern era, war tends to engage the whole of society continuously. As you point out, that is only a tendency and we can all find tragic examples of innocents who are only passively caught up in it. That grandmother who pays her taxes may be the mother of two or three children who work in an armaments factory or significantly service the war effort in some structural way. In modern war, the goal is to defeat the entire war effort - the very capacity and will of your enemy to continue waging war on you. That means significantly damaging your enemy's entire industrial agricultural administrative coherence, and that involves attacking them in one way or another. If countries aren't allowed to do that then they can't defend themselves against their enemy's war effort. In a case like Gaza, where a population has allowed a paramilitary organisation bent on annihilating a neighbouring country and it's people, to completely embed itself in that population's social life and infrastructure rather as the German people allowed Hitler's Nazis to do the same there in the 1930s, then there exists a high measure of corporate responsibility for the consequences that follow. That's what's being challenged in the present Israel-Gaza conflict where Palestinian supporters are accusing Israel of carrying out a collective punishment of the Gazan people. It's a frivolous, opportunistic, and malicious charge which fails to hold the Gazan people and Hamas responsible for the consequences of their own hostile actions towards Israel over many years, clearly exemplified in the indiscriminate bestial violence meted out on October 7th, to Israelis merely for being Israelis. I feel no more and no less sympathy for Gazans than I do for the Germans or Japanese during WW2, and no more condemn Israel for her war actions against Gaza than I condemn my own country for her former actions against Germany.
@@MrBeautifulmountain Very helpful references. Thank you. And thank you for your own further explanations regarding the legalities of war in general as well as in Gaza. I agree with your earlier distinction between morality and legality, and just wanted to add that law necessarily trails behind reality to some extent. I don't think it fares very well in regulating conflicts like civil wars where peoples actually murderously hate each other and will not countenance reconciliation. The essential threat to Israel from Palestinians is irreconcilable hatred of Israel for its very existence. This is really obvious from the chant "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which very clearly intends the complete annihilation of the state of Israel, and the killing or expulsion of all Israeli Jews. How can international law conceptualise and define belligerency in such cases? My impression is that the hatred of Israel among Palestinians is massively inflamed by Islamic supremacism, and has been in play from the conflict's effective beginning in the 1920s when what today we would call Islamists began to exercise moral leadership of the hard done by Palestinian Muslims, and, reverting to historical type, presented the slaughter of Jewish infidels as righteous jihad. Arab protesters in the riots of the 1920s carried banners saying, "Jews are our dogs", this when Jews in Palestine were still a minority, and only explicable to me as an expression of a deeply held sense of rightful Islamic supremacy. When that lethal sense of moral righteousness relative to others takes hold of an entire population or a significant swathe of it, I have no idea how one can distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. It's genuinely terrifying and at the limits of moral codification. The legal regulation of proxy war where a people's capacity to wage war is significantly enhanced by stronger supporters, seems inadequate too. This a very real factor in Gaza where Hamas as Gaza's governing authority seems to have been able to turn massive charitable foreign aid to the dual use of helping Gazans while laying down infrastructure for it's ongoing war against Israel. Shouldn't such 'charitable' donors be classed as belligerents when they know their aid is being used to bolster the recipient's war effort?
Israel's war.... Why nt Hamas' war? Oh and Yes is the answer.
One side has military equipment that is hi tech, the other side still uses donkeys with a cart. One side uses Talmudic language in speeches given to their people to invoke the most radical of all people and then claims it’s the other side who is radical.
Hamas verteidigt
Here’s what proportionality actually means according to international law.
It does not mean tit for tat. It means that Israel’s strikes against HAMAS have to be proportional to the threat and stopping the threat. Israel has used a proportional response. HAMAS continues to fire rockets at Israeli civilian population centers, so the threat still exists. Pictures from Gaza show some destroyed buildings but large areas that have been left virtually untouched. Israel is not carpet-bombing but is trying to hit specific targets of rocket launch sites, HAMAS leaders and underground tunnels that shelter HAMAS murderers and their weapons and their command and control. Anyone claiming that Israel has violated the rules of war in that the response from the Israel Defense Forces has been disproportionate either doesn’t understand what that means, or they are deliberately spreading lies.
From the House of Lords:
"There has been a lot of talk about proportionality in the law on self-defence. I refer to the words that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, used a few days ago on the test of proportionality. It does not mean that the defensive force has to be equal to the force used in the armed attack. Proportionality means that you can use force that is proportionate to the defensive objective, which is to stop, to repel and to prevent further attacks.
Israel has described its war aims as the destruction of Hamas’s capability. From a legal perspective, these war aims are consistent with proportionality in the law of self-defence, given what Hamas says and does and what Hamas has done and continues to do.
Asking a state that is acting in self-defence to agree to a ceasefire before its lawful defensive objectives have been met is, in effect, asking that state to stop defending itself. For such calls to be reasonable and credible, they must be accompanied by a concrete proposal setting out how Israel’s legitimate defensive goals against Hamas will be met through other means. It is not an answer to say that Israel has to conclude a peace treaty, because Hamas is not interested in a peace treaty.
Proportionality also applies in the law that governs the conduct of hostilities, not only in self-defence. The law of armed conflict requires that in every attack posing a risk to civilian life, that risk must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage that is anticipated. That rule does not mean, even when scrupulously observed, that civilians will not tragically lose their lives in an armed conflict. The law of armed conflict, at its best, can mitigate the horrors of war but it cannot eliminate them. The great challenge in this conflict is that Hamas is the kind of belligerent that cynically exploits these rules by putting civilians under its control at risk and even using them to seek immunity for its military operations, military equipment and military personnel. An analysis of the application of the rules on proportionality in targeting in this conflict must always begin with this fact.
There has also been some discussion about siege warfare. The UK manual of the law of armed conflict, reflecting the Government’s official legal position-it is a Ministry of Defence document-says:
“Siege is a legitimate method of warfare … It would be unlawful to besiege an undefended town since it could be occupied without resistance”.
Gaza is not an undefended town. It is true that obligations apply to the besieging forces when civilians are caught within the area that is being encircled, and those obligations include agreeing to the passage of humanitarian relief by third parties. But it is not correct to say that encircling an area with civilians in it is not permitted by the laws of war.
A further point that concerns the laws of war is also of particular relevance to the British Government’s practice. It has already been mentioned that the Government have taken the view that Gaza remains under Israeli occupation, even though Israel pulled out in 2005. The traditional view until 2005 was that occupation required physical presence in the territory. That view is consistent with Article 42 of the Hague regulations of 1907, which states that a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the occupying power. Again, it is also the view taken by the UK manual of the law of armed conflict, which reflects the UK’s official legal position and states that occupation ceases as soon as the occupying power evacuates the area. The European Court of Human Rights, in its jurisprudence, has also adopted a similar approach to occupation. So I have always been rather baffled by the British Government’s position on this issue, which, as far as I know, has not changed. Yes, it is true that Israel has exercised significant control over the airspace and in the maritime areas, but even as a matter of plain geography it takes two-Israel and Egypt-to control the land access points to Gaza.
More fundamentally, it is Hamas that has been responsible for the government and administration of Gaza. I appreciate that this is a legal matter on which the Minister may not want to respond immediately but it is an important one, because the legal fiction that Israel was still the occupying power under the laws of armed conflict has been relentlessly exploited by Hamas to blame Israel for everything, while using the effective control that it has over the territory, the people and the resources to wage war.
On a final note, I would like to say something briefly on the way in which the war is being reported. When a serious allegation is made, particularly one that could constitute a war crime, the immediate response of the law-abiding belligerent will be to say, “We are investigating”. The non-law-abiding belligerent, by contrast, will forthwith blame the other side and even provide surprisingly precise casualty figures. The duty to investigate is one of the most important ones in armed conflict. What happened in the way in which the strike on the hospital was reported is that the side that professes no interest whatever in complying with the laws of armed conflict was rewarded with the headlines that it was seeking."
rozenberg.substack.com/p/the-law-of-armed-conflict
Do you just cut and paste your responses?
I suggest that each of us has an intrinsic right to life, but not to deny it to others. He who is attacked, therefore, may defend himself, even if he must kill his attacker.@@estellasaville1610
Was what the Palestinians did on October 7th morale? Illegal?
I'll save you the watch: yes. the answer is yes.
That doesn't "save you the watch". People want to know the reasons supporting the answer.
@@MrJm323 yes. Obviously. I only ment to convey the redundancy of explaining the reasons why the sun will shine tomorrow. You may want to know how and why in details, and that's fine. But the answer is so obviously yes.
Yes, it can be just.
No it can not.
Yes, self-defense is a time-proven concept agreed to by long precedent.
To expose troops on the ground to much greater risks is exactly with Israel is doing, in an attempt to minimise civilian casualties.
As for Israel strategy for peace, two things:
- why does everybody look at Israel for a strategy or a solution? Where is Hamas in sll this?
- Snd how can you expect Israel to have a viable strategy when the other party, Hamas, have a declared commitment to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of jews wherever they find them?
Rubbish absurd excuses. Destruction of the Jewish People? From here you indulge yourself in “confession by projection”. This is also known as ….. look at yourself, comprehend your mirror image.
I have one question to this so called humanitarian Mr Nigel Biggar. Is this man and the world aware of the fact that officially 13 Arab Nations have banned Israelis from their nation (let alone the many in Middle-East who don't even recognize Israel). Under such a hostile anti-Israeli sentiment what right have these nations to question Israel's right of self-defense where unintentional collateral damage when operating within civilian areas is inevitable.
That is changing with the Abraham Accords. Someone once spoke about the role of strong horses in the Middle East.
Israelis Haben Palestinenser vertrieben.
Thank you Nigel for explaining as impartially as possible. Israel hasn't had a peace strategy simply because there has never been peace but also, aside from America, no other country, be it regional neighbours or Western governments, have ever bothered to work with Israel to find a solution...
So, how do you make people with people who only want you dead/gone? That's been the problem this whole time, actually.
Not true and also a bit of a silly comment. Firstly Norway acted as a mediator during the Oslo peace accords. Secondly what country would be in the position to do this? It's hegemonic position And it's relationship with Israel means the US is really the only possible partner for peace.
Netanjahus will nicht .Hamas wollen jetzt auch nicht mehr .Zurecht .
Answer: Yes.
Hamas didn't concern themselves with how many civilians they harmed.
There's more behind this that we aren't seeing
Yes. Of course its right.
The simple answer is a big fat YES.
FAT is the cognitive word.
👋 But consider this - "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." NETANYAHU explained this to his Likud party members at the Knesset in March of 2019. Reported by the Israeli paper, Haaretz. Netanyahu covertly supported Hamas to keep them in power so no legitimate leadership could form in Gaza and so he could eventually fulfill his dream of mass murder, leveling, clearing, and claiming Gaza for Israel. Corruption and evil through and through. Oh, and killing civilians is not moral. It's literally a war crime.
Everybody should read Nigels book on 'Colonialism'. The Wokeratti went mad at its publication. A higher recommendation for reading it would be hard to imagine.
Why not ask the question, "Can Hamas/Gaza be the victim if they started the war and performed Oct 7 atrocities?" The answer would be a resounding NO!
To YOUR question, the answer is absolutely YES!
When an 8 year old Gaza Shia Arab on “National” TV says her mother was martyred then there is no longer a distinction between militants and civilians; they are all militants. People need to stop splitting hairs on this. “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Winston Churchill”
Churchill appeased Arabs in 1922 by giving a foreign Arab war lord 70% of the British mandate for Palestine (territory for a Jewish State) because the War lord’s brother was kicked out of Syria. Then the British further appeased Arabs by limiting Jewish immigration to the land of Israel just as the holocaust began. The irony is amazing.
@@1czechit1The British had no right to do that. The people of Palestine hold the DNA of the ancient Hebrew people. It was their land. Britain had no right to "give" land that was not theirs to European immigrants. They European Jews should simply have settled into the existing communities among their genetic brothers and sisters. It was illegal and based completely on racism. Remove the dark Hebrews that never left to give to the racist, entitled, white European Jews that simply murdered, displaced, and took everything without remorse.
War is unjust only if the human suffering is Israeli.
As far as the Arabs go, he feels fuck all.
💪💪💪💪💪🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
🇮🇱🙏❤
4:52 ROFLMAO Of all the nations that could possibly attempt to charge another nation with genocide, South Africa has the Gaul? Sorry, I can't take that seriously.
Also, in order for actions to be considered genocidal, wouldn't they have to be directed against an entire race? The people in the Gaza strip are barely even a nation, never mind a race. Try again.
South Africa has perhaps not forgotten the British butcheries and the concentration camps of the Boer Wars.This makes them sympathetic to Gaza.
By the way as a matter of fact the forced colonisation of the West Bank by the Israelis is also a form of perverse war. So let's stop being hypocritical and cynical !
@andreistan5497
Yes, please. Let's stop being hypocritical. That would be great!
An Israel apologist.
Why do you critic Russian invasion to Ukraine?
Deeply naive!
It will be interesting to see how the world media will report the return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, given how He is sidelined by all of them. Not forgetting of course the earth is the Lord's and all it contains, the world and those who live in it. By the way did I mention God gave the entirety of the land to Israel without needing the approval of men. Then the Lord spoke to Moses saying speak to Aaron and to his sons saying thus shall you bless the sons of Israel, you shall say to them; The Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face shine on you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. So shall they invoke my name on the sons of Israel, and I will bless them. This is after all the eternal God speaking !
As victor of the war(s), it is Israel's privilege (and responsibility) to dictate the conditions for peace. To "negotiate a settlement" contravenes the one rule of war that NO ONE questions or violates, except in this conflict - that the loser has no say, and the winner gets what IT WANTS.
I think it is quite sinister to justify the wide scale killing of civilians. Everyone knows that civilian deaths in Gaza are outrageously high. I don’t think the ‘right’ in Israel care a jot about Gazans lives and have said so. I understand that in war civilian deaths in are inevitable but the people of Gaza have no means of escape and are hemmed in under the bombardment and being killed at a shocking rate. I am probably basically a Pacifist though to put this in context as I am a Christian. This doesn’t mean that I don’t utterly condemn the October 7th massacre by Hamas.
The reason Gazans have no means of escape is because Egypt And Jordan have closed their respective borders with Gaza and no Arab state is willing to accept ANY Gazan "refugees".
In comparison to 21 century muslum on muslim conflicts the death toll is actually very small .
(According to sa icj case the death toll is 22000 , closer to the 12 000 hamas soldier and 10000 civillian that israel linked sources claim then the 35 000 civillians of hamas sources)
The syrian war started with +/- 23 000 lethal casualties on day 1 alone .
You're not a Christian.
The ratio of civilian to military deaths is the lowest ever achieved in history. It's less than 2 to 1, which is lower than the Americans, Brits, French, Chinese, Russians, and every other modern army.
It's vastly lower than the local Muslim powers: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, etc. Those numbers are probably closer to 50 to 1 ratios.
No it’s not morally right.
Just because you say so?
Please explain why you say this.
@@jacobcohen9205 Incapable?
He says he doesn't see any evidence of genocidal intent. What could be evidence of genocidal intent if not what the world is watching and hearing? The question in this Interview and the point of view of the Interviewed are so delicatly veiled with an objectivity intent, but it doesn't achieve to be objective not even rational, these subtleties are much more dangerous then the blunt sincerity of Israeli officials.
Spanisch refrain : "Aunque el mono se vista de seda, mono se queda"
The conscious and objective answer is NO!!NO!! and NO!!
An example of a Genocide denier under the premises of “morality”, breathing acrobatics
Palestinian state in West Bank
Cannot destroy Hamas
I wonder if this is why Israel is so hated by every other religious, political and social belief system? Because God chose her to manifest His Word through on Earth first? If anyone has a truly open objective and scientific mind to seek truth, this could be the answer - simple human jealousy for not being picked first. But then no other nation has been willing to be humbled by God and remain faithful to Him. Perhaps that is why He does not seek mans opinion, permission or view point. What a disappointment for them. We will see...
But they - most of them - have not accepted Christ Jesus and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the Law of Moses, the New is very different.
so what@@StephenSeabird
Sind nicht auerwählt.sagen es immer wieder Alle sind Auserwählt zu leben .Keiner ist hir damit er Zertrampelt wird .Wir alle sind Hamas .Hamas hat die Wahlen Gewonnen.
Really? This lingling presenting again, with her forced British accent?
Bigger = Racist troll
Yes it’s absolutely morally right , look at what happened on 10/7
No amount of Palestinians will make io for what happened on 10/7 …. Get it right , they should thank Hamas for this !!!
guff= ignorant troll
Shaaaaaat aaaaaaaap!
In war there a civilian casualties