Israel launched a dozen attacks on UN troops in Lebanon, says leaked report

> "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

The word apartheid in popular discourse is not this clearly defined, but I’ve personally never heard this provision. After all, the prototypical case of Apartheid in South Africa insisted that their victims were actually citizens of independent Bantustans and thus not subject to equality under South African laws.

But even so, countries occupying territories have an obligation to protect the people of that territory, subjugating them to apartheid policies under such occupation is at best failure to protect them from apartheid, which is still a crime under international law, and has been ruled as such by the ICJ, which actually goes much further.

> Please tell me which rights do non-jewish citizens of Israel lack institutionally within Israel that Jewish citizens have?

Irrelevant, but I’ll do it anyway: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index

Yes, this seems accurate. And this caused a large amount of the civilian deaths.

However, I think this is actually one of the most defensible actions Israel took. This started after an invasion of Israel in which thousands of militants roamed around inside the country and literally took over towns, a military base and a police station. It also happened while Israel was being daily bombarded with rockets multiple times a day.

Israel was literally shut down for a couple of weeks because of the massive rocket fire. The economy was completely shut down, schools were shut down, etc, as we ran into safe rooms 3-5 times a day.

And in the background, for the first three weeks, we waited to hear if Hezbollah would join in the action, which was clearly the goal of Hamas. Had they done so, we suspected it could lead to a massive war with huge losses. We've since seen that the situation was even worse than most of us suspected - if you're following along with what the IDF is uncovering in Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah apparently had stockpiles of weapons and massive tunnels primed to attack Israel, in a move that could've made October 7th look like a picnic.

This is a situation that no country in the world would countenance. You can't invade and shut down a country without a massive retaliatory strike. And it is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that only the massive Israel strike on Gaza prevented Hezbollah from joining in the war. Had they done so, I have little doubt the death toll in all countries would be much higher.

> Yes, there are some risks involved. Saving lives is a hard decision. But even if Hamas operatives end up inside new Israeli camps, you are separating them from their military infrastructure, heavy ordnance, and logistics supply chains. You are also extending an olive branch in a very real and tangible way, which would make inroads in giving them a different perspective of Israel besides "these are the people who have killed my relatives/destroyed my home".

I think there was no realistic way to do this inside of Israel logistically. We're talking about a massive population here - how in the world would you be able to secure this.

I think Israel should've done a lot of other things to earn good will among Gazans, like being the ones securing and giving out aid to the people ASAP, etc.

> Why should Egypt be forced to allocate resources to mitigate the consequences of a disaster that entirely derives from Israeli actions? The Palestinians were not driven out of homes in Egypt, they were driven out of homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon, etc.

I was talking about a temporary solution that could save lives.

> Israel could at any moment decide "Hey you know what we're just gonna honor the 1967 borders and recognize a two-state solution too. From now on we expect to diplomatically deal with the Palestinian State via your capital in Eastern Jerusalem. Also we are lifting our maritime blockade so you can conduct international trade via ports in Gaza once you build them....and once you start exporting gas from your Gaza Marine 1/2 offshore gas fields....lemme know if you want to hire some Israeli engineers to help build all that though."

We've seen that this does not work. Israel tried the route of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - "honoring the '67 borders" - and they elected Hamas, which promptly started shooting rockets at Israel and spent the billions they receive in aid money building up attacks against Israel.

Had Israel done the equivalent of the Gaza withdrawal in the West Bank, deciding to unilaterally leave all Palestinians lands without any negotiation, without any agreements on what things would look like the day after... we'd have just had October 7th, but much worse.

There is no alternative to a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Unfortunately most Israelis believe that it can't happen, since the last time Israel sincerely made the effort to achieve peace, those efforts were met with terrorism (and in Gaza, the election of Hamas).

But I agree with you completely - a negotiated two state solution is the only viable way forward. I just have no idea if it can actually be done.

So you're using Amin al-Husseini as a stand-in for all Palestinians, which I suppose is about as cool as using Netanyahu as a stand-in for all Israelis. Or as the other commenter pointed out, when referring to the occasion when agents from Stern Gang met with Nazi officials to discuss the possibility of an anti-British alliance, we might as well just say simplify and say "the Jews" did so, collectively.

But never mind that. Just tell us, please: what did Amin ask Hitler to do, specifically?

Referencing the transcript we all have of their sole meeting in November 1941, of course.

This isn't history. You see the same patterns happening right now. Arafat and Abu Mazen were unable to control Hamas in the same way the Jews were able to control their extremists.

You could argue that the Irish were unable to control the IRA which would be a very accurate comparison. But the scale would be different. Hamas killed in one day more than the IRA killed in its entire existence. Hamas enjoys the backing of Iran, Qatar, Turkey and others. It's used as a puppet to force a regional war that goes against the interests of the Palestinian people. At least the ones who don't want to die in a holy war.

We can also contract Jews to IDF and perhaps discuss how they kill 10x more than Hamas by most accounts.

The killing is the extreme behaviour. The insidious cause is the constant slow creeping pushing out of the other, the dispossesions and land captures that continue unabated.

Some see it. Other refuse to acknowledge it.